Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive
in 2010 witli funding from
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcli Libraries in Illinois
http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat219illi
' r ' ' ' & CL i
'\m^
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and
twenty, within and for the Second District of the State of
Illinois: /
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres idin/ Jus t i ce .
I
\Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice*^-
'■■ /
riiOn. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justice^'
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk. /
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. /
^1'9 i-A; o S-3J
BE IT REMEMBERED, that aftirwards, to-wit: on
/'
/
the opinion/of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figrures
following-, to-wi t :
No, 6767.
Clarenoe Higglr^a, by Grao*
Higglni, Conservator,
DefenrtAnt in Error,
vs.
Midland Camialty Company,
Error to Winnebago,
Plaintiff in Krror. ) 2X9 l.A. \> d O
Opinion 'by DIRELL,P. J.
It 1b olalrcert by plaintiff th:tt while he waH autlnga*
polio eman on the etreete of the City of i'ockfOTu or. June 4,
1912, he •uffered a eunatroke and ther«by heoairje aieabled
from work and afterward* Insane therefrom, ana thut there-
by a liability wa»» created unlar an aooldant ln»urar.o« policy
leru^d to hla by defendant on June ^0, -312, Through hie
cons'irvator he brought tola avilt. The trial cou^-t direct-
ed a verdict for defendant, from which plaintiff ai'.;«aled to
thie oourt, *ind we affirmed the juljnient in Hlggin* v,
midland Caeualty Co., 305 111. Acp. 150, The suprerce
oourt reversed the judgment In Illssine v. i^ldland Cajualty
Co., 381 111. 431, an^i remanded the oauee to the circuit
oourt There another trlsj. wa3 had ^tnd plaintiff had
a verdict and a judgment for tS,COO, fron. vvhich defendant
proeecutes this writ of error.
T^efendant filed a plea oi non-aeeuEpeit and four
special pleas. The first upeotial' plea vras that
plaintiff was not continuously unable to perform any of his
business duties, as the declaration alleged and the policy
-1-
.TaV8 .oK
(
e-j^ii' v-.i jtalgsJtH 8onbiJ»i-v
(
. o-^iid^aai^ orf xo«3
(
(
8 8 0.A.IeXS ^ .^--- .^ ^ll.rri^XCT
•M^i^oM SAW trf eXl/lw ;fjeff^ \1i.'x.x^^.i, ^6 bBoitBlo ax ^I
^^ exu/L au liio'iiooH lo y^iO •ii;f )o ateei^a siij- no a«niooiXoq
-eatrf* uiirf* fertji ^I'totleTftri* sttJi^ni %htainB9tM baa :taow wail
YoiXoq ^uciMiuual itfbtoos tiM iBbau bt^i&Bto «£W ■%ilii€Mii s ycT
• Iri rfgifuirfT ,8XG1 ^06 »ni;T. no ?rt,abn»1et ^cf ain tJ t^im^i
•a«iqi/f eriT .081 .qqA .XXI -- ,.oO Y*-t«.u».sO t>n«Xfci>f
*Jtx;oiio »ilj oi 99UJ60 oAf bBbajm9-x bn« ^.-. .-II X86 ,.--
tjBrf llijaijsiq Ltt/i bMd R«w Xslt^ leAtcna «. ^ .tfiirpo
■.;qt ;f»ii'l t \ , ^9Xq XAios:ie
X-faruj YX»jjcjyni*rto.. . . /.v lliJii. _ ,
-X-
required to create a liability. The seoond speoial plea
denied that plaintiff gave defendant a notice aa eoon ae
poeaible, aa the olloy required. The third epeoial plea
waa thiit by the etatement ei^ed by plaintiff and attached
to the policy he warrant«rt that his habitt of life ware cor-
rect and th-'t he wa« in aound condition, mentally and phyai-
cally, -fhereae hie hablta of life were not then correct and
toaperate and he wae not then in aound condition, mentally
anl phyaioally, but hs was at the time the policy waa leeued
and had "been for a long epaoe of time addicted to the exoee-
•ive uae of intoxicating liquor and to other exoeeeea, of
which defendant had no knowledge. The fourth BFeclal
plea alleijed that plaintiff hed received rredlcai treatment
oomtrary to hie warranty, etc. Plaintiff filed replioat-
lone to said plaae on february 36, 1916, and or the eajrie day
a derurrer waa filed to aaid replloatione, So far ae we
can n«certeln in thl« record that dernirrer waa never *cted
on nor waa ^eave asked to file other replloatlone, but on
February 38, 1916, plaintiff filed aix other replicationa,
which we aeeuwe wae an abandonr.ont of the previoua repli-
cation*. The flrat was a •lirllltor to the general iaaue.
The aeoond wa : to the firiait epecial plea and alleged that
plaintiff waa oontlnuoualy unable to perform hie bualnee*
dutlea. The third replication ''aa to the second special
plea and alleged that notice wa/. given by the oonaervator ae
Boon ae poaeible and eet up the facte •xoubIit^ the temporary
delay. The fourth replication was to the third apecial
plea and alleged that plaintiff waa of temperate hablte and
;raa in aound condition mentally and phyeically and not
-a-
•J3 no0» ajB eoi*on « ifajBtnelet avjss lllJ-fllalq iJ'^ri,* foelrtefc
jteXq XisJtoeq* Mi (13^ affT ,|)eiix/p»T ^oiXo »rf* bjb ^s/rfi^soq
-100 ©Tew eliX 1o •*io«d elrt ^Arf* fte^rtartjsw erf ^olloq
-liyriq tSM YXXi3:fn9in ^iroltltnoo Jbnc -yd i^At brc
tuA tottio9 ne>At ton ©lew elJtX ^o ■*lcf«n tiff •Jsetterfv ^x-C-tJBo
VXXisJndai ^aotiibaoo baaot rcX n»rf* *on bobw erf fcn« ©;tjE5'ia<pc6^
itjewtBj: sjavi xolioq erf* aoil^f oriJ &» ms^ (»rf ctx/cf »YXXj80ieYrfq ttis
-•90xe srfJ oj bd*oi^fc« eml* lo ©o^q« s^oX j9 tol neetf Jbjsrf Jbn*
T»aoxe rstito o >t/piX grrit«oixo*ni lo eBif •▼!•
Xjbioeq* rfitir/ol ©rfT .ssbel^oni on Jb«rf tnjsfcrrtleJb rfoiriw
vat e.iusa arf* ao l)n.e ,dXPi ^SS Y'^siritf®'^ ''O «««Iq Jf>i£
ev; s.T tbI . ToiJaolXcrei bijsa o;f I)dXil *jiw t9niu.%9f> m
b9;fo# i9V8n »«w TetcijarntJb *.grf3" Moosi; »lrf* ni niJttt909A ttMO
no ;tacf ^anoitaoil to elJtt o* heiajs svj9©% nav ttt to
^•noiJfloiXqerr T?-f?o xi» i;.©xn «i;fnliiXq ^aXGI ;8S va^irxcf©'?
-IXqeT «iroJtT9tq ©rft lo tataanobaMdA an •«•■ ©!»«;••£ ©p. rfolrfw
,e.c/»©i X.gtsn-- -rim ,4^
tiirft is^elijj /«« jipiq AJsio©fia IbtI^ bA& of -w Jbnoo©K ©fl'^
• •©niax."^ ^XcTbiti; Y-C«x/Oi^ffi*noo a«if \Jtialxlq,
Xisiceqn i3uoo&. 8il3 oit saw noicfjfoXXqe^t JJjmri;^ ©rfT .•i©i;^irfc
•-6 «^^ ■ T:? bejeXiJB i ajB jeeXq
T»«^c : ;a beta ©Idt^tcq •£ nco©
•^^■^ j.voii%i©i rf*it/ol ©rfT .YJsXet
I5n« tiicr^rl t l^nljBlq *jwl* f»©8©IX« ^a• «»Xq
*oft jtiflis v-i-^-^o-iwYrfq LiiA YlXjii-fteffl noiifiJtinoo hauo© nJ: •««
-S-
affeoted vrlt^ the ilter-f&e therclr rpsc If iad, T>e fifth
repllofttion ^9.p to the foiirth •pedal plea ani trav^reed Ita
allersitlons and,*v»rred tVe plairtJ.ff rat rot 111 of the
dl B8R«ei» thereir. upeolfled. The wlxth replicptl'^n wae to
all the plea* and eet up ft ^rest ler-j^th the raymer.t by the
oonaervator to the authorized collector of deferdart with
the aj^.roval of ite msnafer of ^ ^ertslr preriur or; eald
pclioy juet b'=!fore thle »vlt i»Hr ptprted, and '^Ith full
knowledge ^y feuld oollector and by «aid ranafer of ?11 the
faot» det up Ir. said r.'.efw, and thl« ^p9 alleged to be a iralv»
•r of thoae defonoee. Thle nles. oonoludart with e verifi-
cation and there nhoiad have been a epeoial re;) cinder thereto
by dQfendant, No rejoindftr was fllad. Ag leiendant
went to trial voluntarily V.9 caafl 1? treated aa If iaaue had
been jolne-*. orally to e^ild pl*a. f^ur"^©*^© Court of Honor v.
Barker, 96 in. a -p. 490; iPlttei«an Co. v. Ooeke, BOO 111.
App. 1C8, 114; Potior v. .-.^t. live •^tooV Ina. Co., 300 111.
Api: , 280, ?85, and oaaee thsre olt3'i..
jhsre la eviiancf) ttrnMry^y to ohow thp.t plaintiff waa
^iunatruok on the day In question -.Thile In the perforirance of
M« lutlea ?.a pollceraan, and thet, although kept uccn the
pw.rroi-L for A xon'5 time, he -tbi 30 aarlouaiy af footed ty tte
aunatroke that h« could rot render affective aervioee and
that lie finally becane inaare, Thsre 1^9 evidence
tending: to ahcv that he waa not annatruok, but waa Buffering
fror-. the affect a of Intoxication, There ^aa evidence
tendlnj; to »ho«T thet he had been adlloted to t'-e usa of intox-
icating liquor at the time thle policy wae iaaued, and other
evidence to the oontrary. One of the oleaa aet up.
-3-
erf^ ^o XX.J tort •■sw ^l.ttt^jtl^j •(!* h^ttrvir* bttJt •rrpi^BpeXXjs
adf Y*^ tnerrrjaq »rft 'ft^nrwr t.99r^ ^m hnrs sitoXq erf* lis
dilff fn.ebttt\Bb J.o to*o«XXoo haaXiorf^xwr »rft o.t »o**v^9«fraro
fiii?e TO '^'•/i to rte-gaafl.-i <rft
LtsA /ltX'» fcftfl ,5B*T»t«» -^''w tta» iM* »ao^»rf *»crt "^alioq
erf? •te^.e/t^m bi;»p yc^ ^'-I-'* 5<i*oeXXoo Jbtwft vrf »]Bfc«Xwo«3t
-irlMr M »cf oi be^^aXX.R ^ea ft^ojil;
-tliiiav ^•tlirXo^roo jee.Cq fiffT ,•flafr•'^»^ aeorfJ
o^tTcerf* TC8l>nJto(;i»i laipsqe « .ie?erf »7jerf hrrrorfu oij^rf* '<
b«rf exiael ^1 sja ^e*■B^•Tt ai «»«o e'f* YiJt«>fiv*«wX')v x<?i' tfc
.7 lonoH "^o *TfioO 9r<t9Trjf. t \'XX#?»o .^ftitiot aeerf
• XXI OOf? ,03feo.' rr8.«ie#:' "?^ .craA .XXT 36 »T»3r::j8«
,XXI 008 , oo^r? ^viT .^B^ .V tfXJwR i>XX ,80£ .qqk
.bBtlf> .^9^ ^085 . rqA
lo eonantoT^Teq •rf* rrl ©Xtrfr itoi*8ewp al ^Jifc arfJ nro jltunimnssn
•Hi ^^uorf*i0 ,tsrf' ,t«Bj»oJtIcq «^ eeiti/fc »i<f
tirjB eeolTTfie evJtJoelT:© teJbnfiT Jort |)Xf/oo «»rf *J3riJ »;{oi**i(ij;/e
eonehXva .ertaeni srmoen ^X-^'B^-* <*rf *i9if4"
•«o*/ii r-,srf ail Jerf* worfe off jtfiJtbntJ
«-^' otZoq, mtift »nii 9di ijs touplL "sntimoi
-e-
among the atateiTient* upon which this policy ^aa istvved, that
plaintiff had had aiedical attendance. There wa» proof
that he had heen mo actenled once at his hcuae and tii:At he had
visited the a£a>.d i-hyaician t^-ioe at his office, -^ha evi-
dence la auch en theoe queetlone that tc support a verdlot
either way, the jury ehould have been properly instructed.
By the fifth Inetruction, .^iven e.t the request cf
plaintiff, the jury were told that if Higgln» »uffered a
ounatroke while acting ae pollc6wan and if »aid eunetroke
was due to hie expoeure to the eun in the performanoe of hie
ordinary dutlee and if he wa« from th<r.t date rendered oontin-
uoualy unable to perforin any of hia ■husineaa duties, end If
notice 'flras given to defendant within a reaaonable tiu.e after
the injury, then plaintiff waa entitled to recover, Thie
Ignorea the evidence tending to ahow that hia habit* of life
were not correct and temperate when the policy waa iaaued,
but thiit he, wae addicted to the ixoesaive uae of Intoxicat-
ing liquors, and aiao the evidence tending to ahcv. that hia
statement that he had not received medical ittenttlon was
untruso The el??ht Inatruction given at the request of
plaintiff told the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to
recover under the oondltione therein stated, and It omitted
all reference to the subjecte also omitted frort instruction
V.o, 5o We find It Inpoeelble to sustain a verdict for
plaintiff based on those two Instructions,
defendant complains of the refusal of five inatructions
requested by It, None of these Instructions made any
reference to the replication concerning waiver of the defences
-4-
toe. ,»orf«fcrr©;f*a lAoJJbd.ia fc^rf i)«rf 11i*nijbXq
-jVtt - .- :isloii^y[d^ d..u3i& ©ilJ baJlaiv
joil -Rrf* »noi;J-s©jiP ©eeri.^ no rfoy© ai 9on©fc
^fc»v ..... sfid ©v^ Mifoifs YTx/t erfd" lY** Terf;tl©
- __:_- ..- rxx/c ©riit ^tTild-nijsIq
BiO'xtMain bls.7 __ _..g n^jMeoJUoq . , toj5 slirfw ©;foa*Bcix/8
■ X/( lo ©on^Bcoao^iaci Bl■f;^ al nt/a 6df of ©tcosoqx© slrf o* ©i/fc 6J3t-
a©rtistr- , iJ eltfaau '^tuuoa
• iffT ^Tevoos'. ili;fni*Xq ti©rf;t jY^j^rtfli ©rf*
s!tJtI 1'. .Jt.-f^i-f t t •§r.lba&i ©caefciT© ©rf* t©ioaji
'■' ' r^i
"t^GOir? j-.ti "io aau ©vls^aox* ©a. ^*oil)x)a ©xjk ©rf taA^ iifd
• i u.'tn9:^ ©on©fciv© ©ff:t 0iXj5 Jbna .©ttowplX :ittl
.•,;<! ft9vi©o©'.i ri ©ri tsAi Jn©ffl©*jBJ^©
Ic j-"«r.Tet srfit *i? rc©vls flOJt*Oirt*»ni *ri^l© ©riT .©ifxinx;
Jttnijjrq ©ri* *jBrf* Y^yt ^^^ JbXoJ l!li*ni«Xq
b9ttt. alenedt %aotiibnoo ©ri* fhav r^robtt
itottt itttno o©X£> ©Joetcfu© sdi oi ©on©^9l©T XXjs
TOl ;foiJbTt9V « nia^py© oJ 8Xcfl©©oqB!l fl bai\ ©W «a .oW
.s»^' •tc.rnlpn.f ow# ©soriit no f»a€ WtiaiJiL^i
»nox;>Of LjaXqaioo *n4ih(i©t©r
• ^j»"©jwt(»ni !»«i©rii lo ©fioK .;fl y(cf Jb©J»ejjp©i
;on©^©^ ©ri. ..i7i80noo noi*.?oJtXq©i ©rfJ o* ©on©i:©l©T
If th«ra is any Bvidence in the reoordtfalrly tending to .how
suoh a waiver, th^as in.tmotione *are properly r«,fuaed.
Th. record Is 1VS« •«<* *^« '^'^t'^^^^* ^" ^'^•'' *'''^ '''''
attention i» not called to ^ny evidence in support of the
replication oonoernlnp- waiver. jf there ie no such evi-
dence, then thpt aatter Jfaa not required to be noticed in
Inetructionio The first of theae refuwed instruotlona was
baaed in part upon the proposition that the Jviry telleved
froit the evidence th«.t plaintiff* o hp>iita of life were not
correct, it did not crlve e.ny lnforn:«.ticn to the jury as
to whrt was meant by habit a of life or by the word "Correct"
Fe thint. th'jt part of the in at ruction ahould not have been
given without •omethlner to inforn. the jury tvhat wpib maant by
that term. There ia an inatruotlve oieousBlor of this
eub^ect in Ins. Co. v. Foley, 105 U, S. >50. The rest of
the Inetructicn *aa correct „ The eeccnd refused instruct-
ion was to the effect that if plAintlff iid suffer sun-atroke
in some degree, atlll if it did not reader hie oontinuoualy
unable to perform hie buslneaa duties and he did thereafter
contlnucuoly perfor» duties aa a policeman, there coula be
no reooveryo ^e think this too qrereral. Plaintiff
did perform aome dutiee aa poiloeman thereafter ard waa
pern.itted to endeavor ro do ao for some ooneiderable time,
but there ia evi-^.enoe teniir* to aho^ thiit he 'tr-s not
really competernt to do thla, ^9 think the instruction
was too general and waa properly refused. The nairie
Bugseationa apply to the third rofuaed in«truotion.
The f^rth refueed inatruotlon was to the effect th-^t if
within seven yeara prior to the ieauance of the policy.
-5-
worfs of gnlJbnect yitJiJi'ip'xoc , j^ed^ ^^t
-*jiV!^ -1^.7. tntisonoo noi*j|oiIq*«
.li Jbsoitort H(i ot feaiiix/pi'x iton 8J9V 19^ fm^ *prf* rtsriJ ^sorre*^
ioa •!: UaijiXq *»rf;^ •orrdfjiva erf;
ajB ^rui notijurnxoycil ^na *vJ!^ ton hi
aatscf ax' otrx^anl arf;f "io tTJsq J-eri;^ dW
Ycf tfrt'- ^rfJ larolflX o.t snlrf ^saioa tyorlJlw tiQrtv
%ld;T "io noXaawoaib 9vi;rotn*a/ti ns •! tTarfT .n^aiJ' iterfl
-sfoxnJc.il b^iruAsi Jbaooaa e "oaTtoo bjb* rroJttfoxrrJ'en.t acf*
©ioi*a- i^atalq i/ ^sd* toalle art* 0* sjjw no.^
YXai/o«al;fnoo alri taJbJts^ cb Jl t| XXl^a ,0air^8fc anoa al
«a#l3i»i8/fj JbiJb arf JbntjB asi^J^uti aaanlai/cf eirf m^oliaq 0* aXrfjinxr
fieoXXoq ji a^ m^ttut) awoliaq v-CoxrownX^rroo
lix?! !££«=? .Xx-'T^.Tar oot elfi? ^rrXrf* a^ .yiavooat on
aoXXoq ai9 •aX:f'jut> anoa orxotttaq bib
^»a±& eid^r 08 Ob ot ^ov^aJbne o;}- te&tlsivtn^
'''trn& aone/' Xva aX aTarf* fu^
'""^i .aid* oX) o* &nie^Bzinoo ^ilMmi
-'aqoiq tiscm bns Xjia^neji oc* aar
.t yXqqjB anoX^tfa^^xxa
'■ 'tom&ftat b9»ut9t ci&'^J. ariT
t'?° ftonj8;/eaX arftf" o;t ttoiiq eT««Y fiavee /rXrfitXw
-a-
plaintiff recolvscl Kadloal or durgloa.! attsntion froir any
physician or siirpjeor., than there could "he no recovery, Ae
already etnted, plaintiff had during that period beer vlelted
onoe at hie home by a phyelolan and had bean treated by him
tvTloe at hi» office. We are of the opinion th5.t under what
we aald in paymer v. Modern ^rotherhood of America, 157 111.
App. 510, on p, r34, thlt* Instruction wae too Indefinite,
although it rcay be that the plaintiff should have had itome
pleading by which he denied epeolflcally theit this eto-tement
in the application was a warranty* The fifth refused
inetruction set out the etatenent contained in the application
that his hablte of life were correct and temperate, that he
had never bean eubjaot to certain diaeaaee and th^t he *a»
in sound condition, mentally and physically, and told the jury
that if plaintiff was not a peraon of correct and teir.perate
hablte, they rcuet find for defendant. Thia inetruction did
not define what wae meant by correct and terr.perate hablte and
vaa therefore faulty, ae eu^c;eeted with reference to refused
Instruction No. 1, The paragraph from the application set
out in said instruoticn is subject tc the ausrgestion made by us
in purnar v, brotherhood of Ait, Yeoren, 154 111, App. 27, on
pp. 3<-36 an'i in Clover v. Modern Woodmen of Arerloa, 142 111.
App 376. It may be thet to raiee thie queetion plaintiff
should have had eoire pleading denying th?.t thsBe were warrantl*
and setting up that they were made In good faith eto,
rcr sjrror Ir niiving inHtniotloue 5 ar i 6, re^iueeted by plain-
tiff, the judgment is revereed ard the cause rsmandedo
-6-
ttA , )"r»voo9i on »n bix/oo 9Tt<f(} fl»rf? ,a08;3Xif» to rtJBJtoldifrfq
jb»*i«iv rrsftor boil© 5 i»!iS gaiitBb i^Ad lHifnl«Xq ^t>f*«i*« ^^»9%JLa
atd -{d t9t.96tf .itscf bJid hcijs a^lols^ifq « >[cf aaod sIjcI t4 tono
;r4((ir Taijou *£ri* noJtaiqo orf^ lo wia o'i' .eoillo airl J^a eoiwt
.XII V2X .js&JiietfiA lo t)QQ!itedior„ ax«i)OU .v lajsyaff nJt t^jea ©^
^tt^Inilal)ni ootf q«w rroX}Oirc;fenl etA& ^^^- .q no ^QX8 .QqA
atsot i^n avjsil oXjjorla fiUnixlq adS ind^ acT "{jmr ti d'^uodSia
^aaoji jiJ J.^rf* ^XXjoJtlloeqe fieinafc «ci rfoXrfw vcf ^xiiAasXq
Jbakui&i iUlXl adT ^^^^njgxocBW « aAvc aoxd'«QXXqq« a^;^ ni
noi^jsolXqqjB ad^ ai benijs^frioo J'xiaiaaifB^fa 9dt tjjo d-es ooitoxnci^eai
til isdi ^etjiz»<isii%t baa ^oattzoo aaaw aliX ^o BildM sid &^iii
i9BS9Bib tti«S%»o ot to9l<S:jB need xa^aii bad
X^^l ^<' ^-i-oii laji ^H^^^o^'i'^^'i i>o* xi^*'^"^!^ ^aolttbnoQ Ijnuoa at
a^tjBiaqiTie^ bcijs Toattoo 'io aoorcaq « iToa aaw llli^ni'
bib nomoLniital eJtffT .JaAbnsxaf) lol Jt>nl\ d'»«9i yeilj ,«;rXa*:i
j^w a" ^aieqifla^ oa« (t^oa^ioo ^d ;^ix«a.-n a;Bw ^jsdw anl^aJb toct
bvaul^x 0^ aoaaialaiE rf^iw ta^at^sjva 8« ^^^^^'^^ axo^a^adt sjbv
^at aoitsoilqq^m »di aotJ dqaTSAxaq arf'^ ,ol/l nolfw^i^al
vaY .oA v.. Lujrfaadd-orr' ,
rXiX ^*X ^vtCiitt.aA io ij*:iii;Ou"-V aiaiiOiS ,v lavoiO al i>a*i dC-^^L .^q
ll^j^iYiAXq noi^sex/p aXd;r aeXjit oJ- ^jsilcT ft- . 5qA
»•■.■*v^■■:..; .f.-io '^in;- r.fj^; ■'St,-:yv6i «1 tftajig^^y;, t*". ~' ■ »
-3-
STATE OF ILLINOIS, |
SECOND DISTRICT. ( ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in m}- office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this .
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
^ (-{ ^-.^^iA^ Q^/^/fi
^J
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE /^OURT ,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, th/ sixth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and
twenty, within and for the Second y6is trie t of the State of
Illinois: \
nd i
/
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL , /Pres id ing Just ice,
\ /
Hon\ JOHN M. NIEHAUSf, Justice.
\ /
Hon .\ OSCAR E. HEARp , Justice.
ARTHIJR E. SNOW, qlerk.
/
CURT S. AYERS, g'her
'" 2191-%^^^
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
Jul i the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit :
Gen. ;,c;. 6774
Tlio Pc'ople ci" t'riC ?ti'.t6 cf
Ixiluoiu. Dfifoniau!; ir. error,
va • Frrcr to Co. Ct» DuPagc,
Mux Fenakr', Pla-intli'* in errcr.
Dib.ii. p. J. 219 I. A. 63 3
Ti.o Etiitea Attorney of DuFa^gc Coui^ty fileJ 2.1. irfcr r.c.ticn
ia the County Covu-t iig&.iiibt itstx Ftusky, oh-arglng aitti with selling
lntoxi.o4.tir.g ilnUorB in vioi^^tion.: of the Act Cl* 1SS7 pre;; ibl *:ing;
the aala of auoh iiquori outaxis of iiuor'^oratei .-jl^-lec, vii:'%goa
a.ni ^cvmta in 3.:iy Itieu Quantity t:.an five g;illon«, an i in -zha
origiiia-i. p<*oltagB ua put up oy 'ciib .ranufaoturdr . !:3 wr^j iirlsl by a
j-ry ^iua convioto^ >*ji-i sentoriO-a, ^.ni rorsovsl ths o^uan to tn«
suoreciQ court by a writ ol arior. T i«-*. court ^ranifsmd the oau«e
to this ooxjirt. ?p-o:<ls v J'eurjky, o90 111* Gi3.
T'ife inioririation ^b-n varified Oy the St^tii''. Attorney "uoc.i
infer nation ux -l belief". Dsleri-iaiit a.0V6a. to ciuasa t.,a iafor/ratlon
and £.160 i"ll«a*ca. .-ioneral ^nji i»p'5t!iAi ieaurror thersto r.l to each
oount. The lootion t.o quaah ffae ovorruiad ..\.r.l ^he i^rrrarrcr '.sa over-
ruled. E;y leave 01 court the'Stutsse Attorney t len a.-'?:-'nded eaoh
oount or •'-he information oy inserting in ai.propriate pl:-cee in
daoh oount t'lt foiiCAing: "Tne said lic»uor aula u.b afcrcuikid brjing
then und iherc in lasr. ^uiLntitiee "..ah Tivf ^.IIods." Dcf enfant
then wovtjd to quauh the a.rceiidfed iniormsttion i».n.4 shortly thereafte'^
witnarcw triat motion. He iilleu j, pxea of forriar conviction. The
'Jttitea Attorney domwirred to *.^^At, plea, c-u i •. ? iomorrtr -vaa tua-
tained, T:)at pxau id uCv but out in the s-.batraot anl therefore ita
9uifioio:ioy is not j^reeented for oou«li jrution. D^fenJant r«fu«ei
Co pluai ioi'ther bux atuod muto, j^- ohe court ori'ired a plaa of
not gui-ty to d: entiertsd, ana v...^ oa^ • on the
argurt.ent in arrast of juirjiaent after the verdlot, defendant's
.: .T
,:iv^']iJ<i *J-0 .j:j OJ- -iOTi '
8 88
.n f
o ^a^'
,effoXXjPT; av -
liTOO &ii(''T ,1C
'Tiu/o i'
iTtJ ...
dr..-.: f, Ot ■'.
■ii&^mto''tffi 9x1 1^ 'lO ?njuoc
ue
.>xXu^ :^oa
a*torney stated trat he had ^uat learnel that *-he infom-ation
iiaJ. b«en arnenied, bu*-. +'i«» bill cf ftxoei^tions nln-inly «ihc\.VB that
'.-■egore he entavai hla iaotion tu qaf-^sh •'he InforTation ...b . 'lended,
ha fuly undoratoQil that it lu».d be^n ■a.mtrndaci. ?>.« £.ttcrne3' who
repressntai Ah defeniunt &t +^^!\« trial ioea not anpe&.i- upon ohe
brief hero. The original inforrrtation 9.tt.ted a orime under the
3tatute, u3 held in People v ^'enfikii, suori*. But v.-'..en eaoh count
of thf? information had b^^n so arended, t'lr: v-jrigiri^'.l in 'or nation
ira9 iiapoued cf ;inl t.to oaae etood on *:he infoxT.iation id urtanded,
Tne aRiandment was not awcrn to -ini for r.hat rsaaon waa iaauff ioient,
an w-,s) aleo the original information oso^uae the affiiavit i.iereto
••('ad on infornsatiori. ii-nl belief. But ief&ndant 'withdrew his iemurrar
to *ii0 infor r.Tsition as amended a-wX he thereby wcdved all questions
aa to ita auf fioife.icy inoluling the question of Ite verification.
Poople V Reftd, ^^.7 111, b06« In our opinion no question 'as ptQ~
served in the ocurt below fcr our review iS to tae aurfioisncy oi"
hho articnded ixiforrr.atlo^» TUfc^t an ir.fcrrj'ation ^ay be <i.'"eni«i is
clearly laid dcwn in Truitt v People 88 111. ^18; Lor.c^ v ^s-ople
1^5 111. 435; Daxerbeklar v People 93 113, A^p. 5'r>^i ^ecple v
Wanooaki, oOS 111. Aop. 47.
Complaint is uiie of "he openinfr sto-tement by he rt.-tea Attor-
ney to t ic jury. Ke rr.erely atu-tei ^o the jury what he expsoted
to provo defendant had d.iid concerning hifi having '•heretofore
joll intosicating liquor, which atatement 'he states a'-torney
bala vfa» niaie in t'.ie triul of anci.her c«*ae. It ./as .competent to
prove ^igainat t..e iefeniants a.ny ad-Klsaions or 3t-at;e;ient*» i:e may
nave .'nada that he had add ir,toxio>*ting liCiUord, vhet.i-r ixx a
oonvaraation. or on chs (fitutae utand. ^sople v Andevaon, ^39
Ix*. ib'Ct ibi, iht; •t-tea attorney iia nv. atato tc "-...o jury
on r.e trial of w.at o&ae t.iit ioal^ement was rrado by is'eniant,
nor in writt court tnat saso v:ae re^ iing, nor •'^ho •flao s iefendant
o;
zci Litxettt'* ?-/ «t j^e.;
i>ood"«a&Jbxu.' eri
'i'lStt X*nit t'ro ^j,"T .ST;-;' ly ''to'
T-Ari i^rr Toil^. "Jo
,''i06 .III V3ii .t^^-f
iOti ,l3t»i.>nr'.r
-> t^fcft .'
J . J. Of £.^ ■ Ox
in that caas, nor v;ua"t the reeu^t cf the tria,! wa», i-rii \e aald
nothing t:.c;,t he vraa i-ot er.tltJta tc prove. Counsel for iefeniant
foliowei th-i; up by c;ta.tir.g tht-t l-hi: ati^temert Ir^i been made oy
-iei'fcudaut s«» & .vitreea in » jxosscution ..-t^lnat himealf lor ■» 'le sai
oi' in-i,oxioii.tin£- liquor, ii-nci thAt be «vus convijte-i. lin t'.it oAae, -j-nd
tliat iOxOK iant claiaod that thri-t conviotion vas a os.r to thia guit,
ThcEi) tLing;:* were not sto-id oy :he slates attorney, aad If they
vvdre uvjT'iiful to iefer.jL.nt hs oai.iiov cojr.pJ..in.
The vuriict v.Uj* 'Ts V. e ^ury, find rYv iesferijirt, "ax Fenaky
guilty in s-nner t.n'1 forir. c^s chax.7ed ir Ga;ih s^r:! 'ivery ccur't c-f
'c..ii iriror;;£»1;ion. " Dsfcniunt ncr.tanaa that it is ineuifioiont
boo *utt tIiCJ63 jcrl2 '.vare nc*: iadsd "Ibersto; "^nd tae amendmsnta
t>*fer<3tc." T'u;; triul Via on t>.9 inf oriiiitior: j.b airandad i,nl not
on ' :.„ jiigi.iJLl inf crrriatica. The veriict ;nu-t b« UDd^■^rlitoGd to
rfefer io V.^e cvifi;:dsi inrcrsaticn, •hi ^h lua tbs only .Tiattor vfnioh
vat; being trisd.
Ey Ihe j ulgni^nt the dofandunt uua fin^d C50 and coata
Xiiidsr ei.i*h souiit unl w-^^* oentanced to inprisonwent in '■"ir oounty
^-.ii for thirl^^ ij-ys and:5r ths fir-ft count, and -raa orl-srei to
^ -nd cciLii ' t6i cill -'..:i •in«>'» unl ooata "^fdcis raid, r''?-C«;r.di^nt
ocntiiilu triit tliJraah&uid havs t-.-un v.di'id tc the ;5u'-iarr5«nt the
.^ri6 "ur aiitii hs ii uiachi^rged !?y dua coura'3 cf law." Der? 'niant
ccntjivda tu,*,t if he t.hould V.- unatla t'j p^y the^e finaa the
IJuigmer.t authcrij©* hirr *o be laiprlaonel .'or lif j. Thia poaition
.e,aiijcel by 3-30tior- 17 of Diviuion 14 of uhc Grinlriiil Code,
.hioh provides that when it sh&ll b© 'CA±t Ht^tisfa-otorixy to .*. pojir
the court, afS'^r all ler^s-l m9?->.n« h->-ve '-"eii exriciujtrtd, t a', any
. :.r3on ocnfined In ij.ll for :-.ny firiO or joate for uny oriTinal
c ffcnie hath no estc*te where!*! th to pay audi fine ind oce+a, it
alMill be '^hj duty of the court '.o liaoharcje hiu. /ron further iit-
Mt, -fhioh disohar-e shall operate ad a r-;loaae of the fine
•xrA 008 ta .
Tii« ^uagraent xs vUe_-oiort a--.ir:r..;a»
i ctsi Ci
'I
.O^ ^,jO.
Bttt9mlct&ins an J' iii
rioinx leftj-
YOU-
"Six ttiu
STATE OF ILLINOIS, [,
SECOND DISTRICT. i ^^* I. CHRISTOPHER C. DuFPY, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing' is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in m}' office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
da\' of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the six^ day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nin(/hundred and
\ i
twenty;^ within and for the Second Distr/ct of the State of
Illinoi S.:
Present--The. Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres/ding Jus t ice
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Ju^ice.
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Ju/tice
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Cler
CURT S. AYERS, Sher
219 I.A- S^^
BE IT REMEMBERED, f!!at afterwards, to-wit: on
JU the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wi t :
Gen. No* 68 1'^.
William Templdton, uppellfi*
r»rissd«r Fruit & Produoe Co.
i;ib«.x. r. J. 2 1 9 I •A. 8 3 3
la tue iiorniap cT October ^'i, 1818, 7t;."jpx6ton, ws-ikln;: ■frcir
ciid jxic<«fa.i«t t:, t,Lo jii:.ia» oi' Aii-cis S+rto-c in the ci'!:y cf Psoriu
'cO t- .>.w -, otiw-a. our, -iii. ua iiujO truck iWiui uy the Orio.'sjsr
.vll.WJwin uul rc.'iipl3ftoxi ■.i::*o t..rcv,n into tbe gu->;t«r an i o^rl-msly
ijjuriiiJl. iij «vi3i i.;3 -jwasr w-' "..he trajii 'JO recover l^mixgea Jur
3i*iii iniuriea, uni en a y-^V tri-^i li;*! ■<, ve^rilot amd a judcjment
ior v'CO.w'O. rroii: \»hioll .lsf;j.u U.:it Appe'j,ia» It xj not- oiui.r;si
-httt ""ine d:vrriag©a are .^xoQQyi\'u o.c i:"ih,t tr.e trisil ^iidq;© coj.mitted
uny ':irr or a.ioopt in isnying defenduufM znotioa fcr a nev t'-'i^X .
Dofeniaut ola-.-iS triat thd prjcf did no\ y.'arra,nt a rerdiat t::a.t
dafondiint i«&a nof;iigont, and iid xiofc ij^uirej .-x v^T-i^ot t...-^\
plaintifr waa ^iliy of ooa&.iiba.wA'y fiBtjiigencw whi ou oarrta a,
roaovary,
Ths proof by pla-intiff tended 'oo edt&blisli t.ie foilowi-ig faote.
There waa in /orco in ai.id jity -n oraiiii;.noe /^sading aa fo^J.c'rd!
"Tde driver of =v /abide ove taJcing a strtot oar <?hioii )tao stopped
to t-.l:e on or iiaoliarga paesoiigara uiiali atop air* vehlole be."ore
reaoding a spot opposite 'suoh cu-r io aa not ':o intsrfaro .•" th or
injure passangere .vho o^ay bouid or alight from oaid our."
Plaintiff oaae '^o ': ae oornar of Adajua ani 0-k Gtreeti to ^ake a
car liOinK north up A.iams ntrset. Hs atood on th6 aidowaik on ^he
east aide of Ada.fia Strset aouth of OaJc ^'tjrset, where oar'^ ^(^re
ao3 stomed to atop for north bound paaaengera. It nas a li-''*;le
afty- six i, M. end rainy -ni d<*rk. Livinga, a bort;hsr-in-lavr of
plaintiff, wus on h-. .vay to hia p.aoe of work and had an ufcorella
ti^lzooH molt X^aqqA
• oO BLutot^ a Hull taaediiC
8 8 9 ./ " '^ " '"'
ita-c'jus . - .: -.Oi el Jill .:v.l6JtXIow
I . . .ilAVrc efts' litVB bh .JLii'U/QLx
■ •.^aijjJbt'T £ ijiu~> ffoiiTt?v .- ij;zi i-ix^ ^'xu^ « no tr.w ^eeJt'rxjtnJt II*is.
/.s vi;fcia©xe 9t* ^avtsatiJ: tii* &mi*
.U-ii'.;? r on x. zoz aoijum t-'J- -' gnivaeL cii. *qe.ox6 loitie yrx^
aoiX-^tyv *i 8iiuij£-i don Lii tfu. .JnogiXjiOXi fcjiv- unafciitaot
.ato^i irexXcf«d'ea o? t9Lae9 lll&axaiq ^ti \ooiq qlT
raroiu-o'i bjb unlLjif'. ^aa.satt'io an 'jJio LtnQ al ©oiol n^ bjw •■xedT
iftqqci^K a^*f do.txl* Tt*»& *tf t*e ^ ;Mrii3i*-:" c-'ao sloixlev ^ lo tXijvixjL o£:T*
•lolflev teir' Utt'giiseajaq egtCJiifooii. lo no o^f-;? oJ"
f(oxiP ttitieoqqo toqe a ■^til:L0M9t
,'i.*^ Lj:*^5 taoil tfiigxX« 'io v^it oxlw «79^a&8aj^q tiu^al
n&^ttiiC jIaX) txi-s • .iToo W:-. Ou 6iiiio tlicfnifiXS
— ■•1.13 amxi.A qiJ xid-ion ^nio^ a*o
x/js ^sstrf^B arn^lA *o etie ^««9
.^. i x:xT»3 .y. ,.4 xXo "eitl^
1 ri-
■• T
and iiaa w^lkai t.12.* far \»ith ploLl-iti'f un 1 atoci talking '.^ith
pl^lnl,i-r till the oi^r auxa.. Hr) tiiian 'turne'l to ^50 on .•m"] '•".len
t;iou;j:it of aomet^iing ',lae h-a wirfyioi s-o auy to rl^intlff an l -^ucned
arou.id ani aav/ plt-intifl juat "jsiTorc} arid at the ti-^ie "^o 'vaa 'Jtruok,
T)io our liad i-rrivod ::,nd j'6oi)p8d >vli;"ri itq fron-i ci,*< Oak Etrust '•~r\i
tir.c reur -iC foe* fui'tr-er buok. Scvsral :oeu u.,.1 b3«n •?tt:.:;iir.!^ ir.
th3 :itr-jct, r/aitlnr: for ■:l.e oux at. tJie T.roper placv to bcuri it.
Several ct ;ar ir-^n h.-d atooa on ".lie yidd«falk waiting.; for *he ot-r«
Tac 3-r atoppod, ^:be ii:eii iri i^c atryet 'jBg«>,ii to '.;tit on, i,l.'j men
on *1".3 3xde»7uil: oturtci aoroae tha etr?ot to ^.l^o oar ^ni plc-incirf
Wa6 t-.e l:f-ut of tli^Bici '^ill 5 plaintif T wiiS :;i~ja(»l:i>7 ."ro^R -"^--a :4iie-
Ww^Ik t.o tl.f? sar^ f e truok caxe up t'-^-i atrost ats iii apddd ox 15
milou per hour in ths i£,rk wi^hcuu any bauiligliii and .»!. +•.:■»o:^-.
S0U:•Ii!l2 any \rarning. Tna ooriier of ^h*^ t^ruok atrujk pi ..
and tarsw him into tlic gu'-tior. r.ifl proofs introduood by k'''enlaTit
toiidel ■'•,0 aaov; V.Jit Mie >ipcel c' *"'t« tiuok .vcj only 3 o*". 9 uiil?©
per liour, th?vt a light was burnin-j, that a horn .TaiB douiiibd, akid
tiiat plaint i'f ran Into ths sida oi the triiolc, and f;hat M.ii i'ji-radS
oar had not reaohsd that pla^^s .-h:.n thia icciicjnt liitppaudd.
Plaiutif* had tnc rltnac3e-i 'c tV.e oocurr<;nce, hi;ii-'yl:' ana Livings.
Drti'eniant had three -.vitriiSGes, the ^riv^'.r o/ tne car, ariof.jsr
3niplcyas of defendant who redo ci: th: .'rcrt gcat, :-nd anovher
smployac of iofen-.U'.nt ?.'ho stood up in tb« lAck :;.vrt v- M'l'i truck,
Ti-.eas rrion ?itre not in +'? employ of defendant at h*! ti.riS of tho
trial. Delenaant cont??nie that the jury dhouli have b«li«V3d k Ita
■7ltnfc98cs or^cause ti.ey outnuEJb«r« pl^.in*:if f •& aituei^^ca uv.± ce-
oause tr.ey ars net no'/ ir. t;>s erpioy of lorcnia.-t ^r.l therefor*
arw AlBin-'«rBated, while piainti/f o .'iLr.e»6S» h intcreaMed.
Tn& jury beiisvaa pl^^intlf:^' « sltncsssB. Ti.crc- oca
in ^rocf which tended to juatily that bsllel". ir^'«r
tiwLj*: was not diaiutortatcd, for h« sag
t..i injury i; plaintiff's tsatiinony ie true. — ;:otive
2l%:it e.1:* rtl i; «»xJtiB
nyn &IJC
Tmrsv
:■!
firewan unl theraforr was aocuBtomei to rapii travel. 'MeitheT he
.:or *:ie otiiSi: .i^an cr. t). Iront seat at^w plaintiff till after "le was
hit.Tlie truclt .vaa cf light weight ani vvaa 3U. plied with proper
AppllanacR lo 9top it quiokiy, j»nd '->.-•; iriver ;3it,yo h.> uiad t: en.
lnjn»;Iiataly, but tli£ tru-jk rs.;. quiti ii. iong iid canoe osfore it
.,,-.8 ito-'ped. Ths ^ury t^-^v? 3I13 ./ituiiae* unl r.3uri 'r.au'i tej^iify,
ri;£ trlu.1 iuige approvai tl.a verdict. .Ve 33A nc .zrounia unon which
vrs car. sc.y t>iit t'.ie i,~.::y ohoulJ -V'.ve believed iftreiiiant'e v-itn^aies
incis^vi 'jf piaintj rf • s. cr ".hat anotl^i^r jury wouli '0.'. likrtl'/ to j,o
qO. If Vn etreet c-.r "^-'.-.i^ T-L-jsi^'ing i:'-.ti»en{r«r» bjACT? p l. mtif f
1-ft t".& rlJ;-:V;L\ll , then i£:c'r:i. nt' a Iriv.r vlcla^Al + :.» or:iinanoe
,:. i vir.E .^'cilty of r.^gligsr^ot; . I: t;:s t-'-uck wxe i)yin>T^ :!ri7«n at
15 .Tile a per hour in tha lark .dthoat jl li^'ot anl 'Without acurning
a horn i'j it -:.... -ircaci.ci Oui cUaet its irlv:r '.tas f!;'.:iJ.ty of no;^-
lif^enoe. T.vec. if t>.8 9tre;?t :;a.r l-^i not arrive!., it raa very rT»a^
at hand ci,r.l ♦•%€ prpecro* cf plain' iff iu ^ae straet «a;» net ne:;-
esaarily ne^ili.'jer.oe, ."or t'n right tc Uiij the atros-l; .y^^ocyyz tc
foot paaaengsre ^.^a Aell aa thc64 to tj. AV^llirigj in vsaioiaa. Tiis
4u©&tioii iltigatei hare la purely on-3 o.! faot apon 'fuicn th«
vsrdict of t.ij jury a-rprovai by ^he •'rial Juigs, i-j oonciucjive,
in the 3t- te cf the a^iiance hare.
r.iC juigxant ia thersfore «»,rf '.rrr.ed.
NIITHATJP!, J,, took no part.
.Visa *£08 zaoil ri? ao ajsm T9ri#b erf? lo:
.o Jrigieiir ^rfgil lo u^vi i&UT.it en'T.tfid
oi eaolsa eoniJ^faiii: -BnoX js stlup nfi? iou-it r,,,i ^u<i ,Yi9*£2teRtnl
,Y:^ir6«* marft Jt". ©riff W£3 T^J-'t «^'T *ijdqc;o?« bj:,.
rfoirl';' noqi; &ifa>0Tj. an see eW .Soitaev s-ft Lcvoaeq^ ^-^lul XaIt* ttar.
5»»e(»n*lir a»:tn£i:n*^«t JbarslX. tli;0if£ ^r. \jss -'rtio 2.
'tl .c.
©or ^--Iljavffll tlrJ:
Snifftwof; >+uori.ttT' frn^ ft^-' ■ otS-M^ itAt t.-frf cii mod isq ssI.t'Ti 2.i.
-rstr. :f-on •-^.^w itecTtf^t sxi* til l!ti '/lijr-lq Tlo »o.iafl =»T:i a ■* f-rT^^ Jb/rjprf J.^;
j:^ axfiOirc {t'eoTc^a ©rlj- fax/ o* Srfgii *rf1 20". .co.iSTilXjjsn Y-f^f'^****
5i T .t^ioi:! jiiiiXftVi .< j- o;f saod!* s^- XI©v a^i aTc*sn8e8A-.cr ^oc''.
Slit r^.olii^i ctocu toi- o ^Xsijjq eX arrsn teJjBgliMX iioirfaoup
.©viejL'Xonoo ti »osXxj(, . a/! • v'cf Jtevoiqojb \ciij(; srl^ lo tottizv
.aisjrf ©ofreiXvs e-rft lo •:»• >tt »'rt? ni
.J"ij3ir^ on -ivjo" ,.1. i^UAFi'iXld
STATE OF ILLINOIS, I
SECOND DISTRICT. • ) ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my oflBce.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
(J^-H /h^ (11^7
{ / ■ ^
"z-O
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT
/
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixt^fday of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine/hundred and
twenty, within and for the Second Distr/ct of the State of
111 ino is:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pre/id ing- Jus t i ce
/
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, /us t ice.
ARTiiUR E. SNOW, Cle/k
CUR\ S. AYERS, Sh^r
V
V
'"2l9l-A-S^^
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares
following-, to-wi t :
Appeal from Peoria,
!To, 6812.
John Dunn,
Appellee,
ve.
Standard Dletllllng and
Diatrlbuting Company,
Appellant. / #^ ^ .*^ -*. * ^
219I.A. 63 3
Opinion by HEARD, J.
Appellee brouf5ht ault against appellant for personal
injuries received while in its employ and recovered a judg^
rcentfor §7,500,00, frorr^ which judgrient this appeal was
perfected.
One of the oounte of appellees declaration alleged
that plaintiff, as an employee of Appellant was required
to be in c\ose proximity to a revolving pulley and belting
80 located as to be dangerous to appellee as suoh employee,
the duty of appellant under the provieione of *An Act to
provide for the health, safety and comfort of employees in
factories, etc., "Approved June 29, 1915; in force
July 1, 1915, • properly to enclose, fence or otherwise
protect aaid pulley and belting; the failure of the appel-
lant to comply with aald act. ''aid count further alleges
that appellee's right hand, as a result of said alleged
negligence of the appellant beoajrie oought between the said
revolving pulley and belting, resulting in serious perma^
nent injuries to his rl^ht hand and arm and other parts of
his body*
-1-
.SI8S ,oVl
^ .9»iI©qqA
( .av
888 .AJGIS
( . (frrjallsqqA
II o i n i q
- -.. --.. ,^.- . .... ■' • ^()O.OOI!^f|l lot^nea
.i'd^oelieq
td3©XI>a rrol;tj8a£Xc!i. wi.>-;X9qq\« to •*nuoo 9di \o •nO
^aijtupsi eaw j£T«XXeqqA to »exO-C^«» «* •« ^lli^fniaXq Sedi
Zi'tiS.9d beta ^BlLiri ^nlvXovtt 4 ocT Y^-toJ-txoiq eeoXo nl ecf ot
^ftBYoXqaa rfoue an d»XX»qqj8 o;f 8^/0l©8^JR^ ed OS ajs fc»*eooi o«
oJ *oA nA" lo antoleivotq ©rfj latnu JriAXXiqqjs lo yJjjf drf*
at eesTfoXqine lo ;frrolaioo Jin* y**^*** ^rf.•^^••-. ■' «»<H[rf' 10I efclvoiq
• oiol rr2 jSXPX ^SS ©ai/I. ^8V0lqqA* 4.0*8 ^UBlroitosl
dalwierf^o 10 CL;fT«t ^eaoXona o* YXieqoi:q •,axex ^X )f-tJ^^
-Xeqq* srf* to 1 Bdi igni^tXacf hnjB ^eXXyq Jbijee itosJo-xq
aogeiX* Tsff^ii/l jfnuoo tL»r> ,&oji Mjbb ritiw yXqmoo oJ *n«X
£)»?0XXja Jbiijs ?:t *Xase*f ;8 ha ^brtjarf ^ff^ii a»e»XXeqq« isdi
tiae ddJ net. ;r-yoo ©uucec/ *a*XXeqq« •!•(* "io •on^siXgen
-«.Titeq fli/oJiTes /ti 3xit*Xui©-.T ^jniitXecf ^^* yoXXx/q snlvXovei
lo 3itA<i ^©'f'to tn« iHTj8 tajs ^^J^Jrf ^jffii 8irf o:t a©iTtjL;(,nl ine^n
t'^tod aid
-X"
It la olaimes by appellant that the weight of the avl*-
denoe ehowe that the aocld#nt in queotion -ArsLs rot due to
negli^ience of the defendant,
A few ds-ye prior to the ».coident, whioh ooourred Janti-
ary a.9 , 1917, a new fan had been placed in the fan room of
appellant's dittiilery. Adjoining the fan wp.a a paesaceway
3^ feet wide, along the aouth elda of the fan room. About
3 feet froir. the fan and on the other side of the paeaajjeway
was a spiral stairway. The fan was designed for use in
elevating feed and waa connected with a pulley ovsr whioh ran
a 6- inch rubber belt driven by ateaus power from a counter-
shaft to the Kain line ehaft which extended through the fan
roorao The belt r«,n in ^.n easterly direction fror-i the fan
pulley to a larger t^illay on a counter- aha^t. The larpsr
pulley was to fjlve speed to the en-.aller pulley on the fan,
whioh made about 1,200 revolutions per !rlnut«. The two
pulleys were 13 or 14 Beet apart. This pulley and belting
wa« not enclosed, fenced or protected aa required by la«.
At the time of the aooldent appellee wa« engaged in throwing
resin on the belt near the pulley, to keep the belt fron.
slipping, when hie ri^ht am; w?s oaueht between the belt
and pulley and he .ma aerlouftly injured. Had the belt and
pulley bden protected aa required by law the accident could
not have ooourrad and the jury were Trarranted in finding
that apx-.ellar't^a failure to comply with the statute was negli*
genoe which proxin.ately caused the accident.
It la argued ^y appellant thit the damages awarisd
were exoesalve. That appellee ''as aerloualy injured Is
evlrienoed bv the fact that for over two years he was unaoie
to do any work during which tlrr.e appellant gratuitously paid
-5-
njii ho.'
•IS-:;
ie-^Ti,-ij, sn'T
.•O0g;:?ii39n:
: A
^oal 9Ai no ydXIxKi -xeXXAJne e
Sua* *X»cr iff* i)j»H
008 ^X Suo6m «b«fli dolifw
»t«w t^^XXx/q
3i«oXone ^oa «jiw
^-:,9€ %rlf no ait»a
:.ii% airf n«dw ^galqqlXa
xAuoi%*s tJiV' »d Jbn« x*XXvq jbnjs
s Jbo^otJOTq jt»6d ^»XXirq
llXiOOO •▼Ad ^o/l
;OTq doXitic •oa»s
-1 ;,. z^'^^.L -^Zi'^rotif^f. o,w *. ,to ©-.tew
i)i«q YX8^/o;IJtji*«i;o ^jtiiXXtqqji •aX»^ iioXiiw ^aXawfc jfiow t;iM ofc o^
him t3,605,O0, for his loet tirte* Both bones in hie arm
were broken and tendons out and iaoerated. He was in the
hoepital for alx or seven weeks with hie arm In a cast.
The bonee did not xxnite and he vae a<yain taken to the
hospital in May 1917, his forearm laid open and plates
screwed to the bones on both aideso He was in the hospi-
tal six or seven weeks at that time. In August he wae
taken to the hospital the third time, his a r^ again laid
open to the bone, the platee unaorewed ani taken out.
Conditions of inflanjation, pus and supperstlon were suoh
that the result was perme-nent inability to straighten the
elbow, and to entirely olose his hand, whereby the normal use
of the hand and arm was materially lessened, Weceesarily
he suffered great pain over an extended period, ^rior
to aooldent appellee was earning #35,00 per week, ne first
oommenoed to work after the aooldent some tirr.e in May 1919,
Appellant paid C'468 for hospital and phyalolan»e bllla, which
added to the ^^3,605, heretofore mentioned and the ^7,500
verdlot makes a total oorapeneation to appellee of $11,573.
Taking into oonsideratlon all the faote and ciroumatances
shown by tne evidenoe we wouldent be justified in saying
that the damages awarded by the jury were exoeesive.
""e now ooBiS to the rtost serious question raised upon
this appeal which ia th^-t the court erre'l In not granting a
new trial on aooount of improper argunent of appellee'*
couneel to the jury.
It is unquestionably a matter of fundamental importpnoa
in the admlBl strati on of justice th?t every litigant is
entitled to have the jury determine the facts in his case
from the evidenoe In the case, uninfluenced by an other
-3-
aiA 9tti ttl 96Tiorf iio8 »9mlS ^boI sir! lol ^00.50a.S^ mlrf
•rfi ill <=. .fcad-jBttacxj. ^noJ&n©* trc* rxsiorrd 9T»ir
, .ii aa-B airf Ait* &AP>t^-i leves lo xi« lol Xjsi'tqioif
ttrl;f 3J neijBJ xii4?fl •- ... - ■ '^ e^-rrn *on fclb atnorf erft
;; erf* ai a«w eH •aetiii cfJocf no aerrocT eK J bJl)» wvYOii
:: arf ;tax/SJcrA ixl «0ml# 4jarf;t tR sieew nov^e to xla 'X<#
J3l«X ai«s' Mfx^ Biff «oai^ bti(f^ 9Ai X^ifiqeorf arfif o^ ntiA;f
*iuo n^iAt bajs £ewa*co«ffi/ aa^^Iq arft ^anorf »rf;t ot neqo
rfouB aiaw noifattaqqjua bn* ax/q ^noiiMauiS.tnt \o staottltttoO
•dt n9td^tai&B oi ^tllldMal ^frerrr.jaiaq aaw ilimet Bri:^ indf
9Bii ijionoa erf:+ vf^sterfw ,l>ja«rf eirf aeoXo Yla-ilJn? oS brtj ^worfXa
Xlttaasac .oanaaeal YXXjgiistjafli aiw atx* bn* bnBrf at(> to
•iQt%- ,Jboi78q baJbrrs^xa rr« i«vo ni«q ifjsa^s b87al1:ira arf
iBxlt 9^ .^eer -req 00, ac'^ snlrraa© ajsw oaXXaqqjs ^nablooja oJ
.WCI Y*'-' inabXoo* arf*' la*!* iro^ oi beoaemmoo
doidt: ,fi£itd fi'rt^JtoJeydq briM Imtlquod xo't 88*^ bi<q JnaXXaqqA
003»V$ arfcr fcrr^ btnoiiatna a^oTto^aiaff ,909 ^C^ arf* o;f b9bbM
.5T3^XX$ lo esXXaq'::/: oJ nnt&JBaz9qpinz iBtoS js aajfjsm toUbiav
s-or^-' + P-u'r^- aoiSffOO oJfri jrti3f»T
nabXi/ow aw aonaMva an.t yrf fTT.-ocfa
.:-vJtBeaoxa aiew yrvt arf^ "ri fcabiawa e»a*nj?l5 arf* ^jsdi-
^»ex/p fe arf* o^ aaioo won S' '
=>x^e *awoo arf* i'j'rf* ai rfOJtrfir Ijsaqqji alrf*
' n^Mj^tn aeqoriqml lo *rtx;ooe.e rro tMttf ii»»n
.vTt.r; .[ean>'/oo
6 '- ^Ritnfc« arf* ftl
aaao alrf ai aic^t *rf* 5nifflia*al5 )t h8i*i*ii©
terf*o aji Y<f baonajuXtnlnxr «aa«o tri tciva arf* moil
consideration , In Bishop v, Chicago Junction Ry. Co.
S89 111. 63, It ^TRS said: "If opurte of law are to be souiv
cea of justice, the rule that parties iltla;ant,/ regardless
of Arho they may be, shall have secured to theit the opportuni—
ty to have the issues of their caee tried by a jury free
from the pre|udloal Influence of the Improper conduct of
oounael, must be strictly enforced," The rule thus laid
down was followed by ue in the recent caae of Bromley v,
"oeoria Ry, Co., opinion filed March 9, 1930, where we
reversed a close case solely on the remarks of Counsel.
Tt is not every case of rclsoonauot or oounsei, however,
which will require a reversal. Where the liability is
clear and the verdict Is not excessive the matter is one
which should be left largely to the sound discretion of the
trial judge and every reasonable presumption will be Indulg-
ed froc hia sanction that no nieconduot of counsel matterially
prejudiced the opposite party, unless such aleconduot and Its
prejudicial nature are clearly shown by tne record.
N. C. S. By. Co. V. Cotton, 140 111. 486i C. C. Ry. v.
Cr«eoh, 207 111. 400; neel v. Hellegenateln, 344 111, 335;
Appel V. C. C. Ry. Co., 359 111. 561; Colline v. Sanitary
Diet, avo 111. 109.
In the present case the arguments to the jury were not
taken by the court reporter and the connection in which the
remarks complained of, were made la not shown. Standing
alone without the context they are mostly rceaninerlese.
While the rtnarks were undignified, Improper and •Wrongly
to be condemned, objection vrae sustained in each case of wnion
complaint .mB made. The trial judge who heard the remarks
»J^4i.lfRf* t^« connection in whlgh^they fere made refused to
grftttt g^ jjg^ trial on account thereof and we cannot say that
the prejudicial nature of Counsel's irleconduot is so clearly
shown by the record as to require a vaevereal.
The judgment is affirmed^
-4-
-ajL/oe »' ei-ixroo 11" ; ijse a.;v' ^i ^£9 •XXI 68S
tBaXbiwgdi \» Jn£; - - ..:'... js-f* eiin srf;^ ^eolJauj, "to ftiio
-ifit/Jto 1 .0 erf* xBdt o& J)«iwo»8 »▼*<{ Xi*rfB ^9(S ^sca f[9tlt Qiiw J«
lo ^oubrtoo tteqoaqml erf* lo •onai/X^nl Xjsolfcu^SKi eri* saoxl
blMl •uAt 9lifi trfT •,l)sotolii9 x^&olniB drf *exm ,X»fcni/oo
,v tf^Xmona lo •Bjso Jf!»oei erf* al ssj x^ fcewoXXo* e** owofc
»w erctilw ,0861 ,e rfo-xjsK t>eXJtl nolnlqo ^.oO .^H jeliottr
• XesrtuoO lo s^iarae^ srf* an vXsXoe oejso eeoXo « JbenTdvst
,iav»wori ^Ieeax/oo lo SotttaooBtx to m/jo y'®^* 'I'Ofl eJl *t
ei Y^-^-^-^cr<«^X arf* onerfW .xtiaievoi « 9'xii/^ei XXxw rfoiiiv
ann t/sn erf* avltieeor.e ton eJ! *oiti6v 9rf^ tite i««Xo
9r( :*e:co8^t tniroa arf* o* yX»3V«X *leX ecf J^Xijorfs rfoirfw
-^Xitbni 8cf XXlw fxox*q(mnie"xq aXcf-Bflotjsei vtovb fcna esfcwt X«ll*
YXXjii78**«ffi Xeenjjoo. lo *ojutaooBlfl on *frf* RolioaMB sirf moxi i^a
«*i bttB ioutaooatm rfox/a aeaXniy ^Y*ajeq oDlaoqqo arf* £)dOitx/tfti()
•Mooarc arf* ^d nworfa ^LimbLo htm aax;*«n X«ioXl>x/ta7q
.V ,t^ .0 .0 468* .XXI 0*X ,no**oO .v .oO .^H .2 .0 .K
iees .III **s ,ni8*e«©'?aXlaR .v Xean ;00* .XXI TOS ,rfoaaiO
XTiMiltuse .V sniXIor^ ;ia?. ,iXI eas ,,00 .^F ^ leqqA
.eox ,xxi OYS 4*aia
*on airaw ^xu\, arf* o* aJasiflXTjie erf* aa^o *«eeaiq erf* nl
iiii rfoJtrfw nl nox*oenfloo 8:fJ tcxa rc8*70qai *iuoo erU yo' aai«*
8nll)n**fc , 3i» ^lo £>eril,aXqi«oo sjtijBmai
.acelTinxnj»«»»a YXa&o»n *^* varf* *xa*noo ad* *worf*Xw aaoXji
■J Blew siiaaiuaa erf;t aXlrfW
aoi*08!;cfo^i)aflrr:ei3fioo ecf o*
«.-;:! i'liiei an* Xiajtsrf erf?.' 6^iij|. :.axa;; edT ,Bb<da ajs; *nXjBXqmoo
, i^e^aveftv « «: : mrorfa
STATE OF ILLINOIS, I ,
SECOND DISTRICT. I ^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DcFFV. Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoincr is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my oflBce.
Ix Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
- a tp^^uJi (^^ I d/ o^
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COliRT ,
Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the afixth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand jfine hundred and
twenty, within and for the Second District of the State of
111 inoi 8 : g
Present — The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, p/es iding Jus t i ce
■Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD , Jus t i ce .
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clei^|.
CURT ^^. AYERS, SheMff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, th^t iif t erwards , to-wit: on
'Hi 1 - inon the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares
following-, to-wi t :
Gen« No. 6Soi».
Parker {;::ug:*art, ft £.1
Vd Arpeal fror, T/ii-rrfsn.
Willian Payne, apf <fiifvr.t.
219I.A. 634
Appclieoft were. er.,;t-ge.i in t.h« <;rt..ir' ouiJi/iet-.E-- *-- i.,i:tie
York, "^Yc.rren Coxirity, r'ap-^.ftsfoor 11, 191?, tliey ra.ttre.i ir. .-,c ■-
non"tr;>c;t -Tith cpp^Jii.nt aa "ollcv70!
"ContriLCt !To. ... Little York Sti^tioix 191...
■"his ip to onrtify, %\:a.% I hu-vr. thia aay oontraGtaa an! sold
T.l^tle Yc:k Cra^r- vc, L'ttin Ycrk, ni.,
Tr.r. Thoiu-arid rr.fhcl*^ of Y«. Hot? ?. C, :i.1; il'> oents per 'OMihe:.; to
be need, pounl :\r'i \ry 'Ar.rt to Craifj No. 4 Y cr cot* sir to h^ dcliT-
ereJ Into th-Jir C']evfe,tcr i^t L'tt'e Yc-rJ: or "iiiunor on cr t- lorR t)ie
31f3t. l^.y of D-^o. 1917.
12 ianiac;;?.i or inferior ,2:ruln ie delivers-', or trii'' ;or;Vr-,.ot
The n.i^rket iiff er-'^nce at ■'.«1iich cjiioh ffTi-in i-i soiling uriiier -.Ye oon-
tract'wi grs.de ah-^ll be deluot-sd trora t\c contr^-ct orioa.
I .JfcTtify that "thJ 7rc».in ia in ir.y pcaneawlon ■.:^n-l Troe of
QienG ari IriCiiwbranoef: , inciuiinr tns lr::.n-llor'i' a Hers.
Vi'ir Payno . "
It wub uH-reea by txie r^rtise tbat""!, CS me*i:it "-^h-ellci sorn" 3.rid
"IIo. 4 Y", "Nc. 4 Yeilcw."
Arpfcjls.nt did not or. Repte3^b^■r n^ i ^] ? or at any - ^ . .-
^ftar before Deo, 51, IS^l?, have in hi .^ possession, or make any
attempt to ieliver to appelleeB any No. 4 yellow shelled corn,
tout Tc iiu h'->ve over 1C,0C'C bvitheis cf j. pocrer quality kncwn a.a
1^0 Gr.ie or eaciple corn. No corn of any ki ■- i -v- - I'^liverei on tha
ocntr xct .
. x\ ,as£>
X 5?
-■^ : . i ' •' .: J '1 i '■' r . oil ii.
a<i; .. . TOY «''
-HOC
.s.cTsiX e'i:-. iriL'XnrrJt , ssorraicffty/o.Ti fc/TJS crtsiX
" . . , • . >;;«
.rtT^o f?fr?'rf(s ^ .o^ Y-f^ "»* ' iSiViloi. oJ i-qmo^tje
TTSVO 9Vcrl LtL s1 :tycf
Appalleea brought auit against appellant for breach of the
contract and Xiinovuviid a jiiuguiant for ,"349c.02, from \^blch
Judgment thia u; pe &1 ic taken.
A.v)F«ilii»nt cent .on li-; that the verdict ind judgr.or.t are contrs^ry
CO thd tiviiflnov. Couu.^ol for bo'ih jiies un-X the trial court oonitrued
tae ooutract iu t*:c d£..'ad jJi».:.n9X i~iil upon ire i-^-S'ied vrhioh mwi .-jub-
miT.ted to tJiic jury due evlisnoo '7u-3 J.iarply jon.?l?. cting. Detor-
miniiigyifcrifc-^ -'/("oiti-it o2 ■*. ..c evidj^co v^ua tl\c aj-eclaj. prorli;oe o:' nhe
^ury' -...a-x 'v^e ^,cull not Lo jastii.i8d in Uaturhi/.'j their .finli.ig,
Ac^fili.rit 50n.iylaiu6 of i'i.a :uC;iif i 'jati on c:' ti,<) of hi-.^ iu-
u;"ruc;tl-ao uy inicrtlr-jj Lh--r;;ir, a i:.i'4Uirf;;::!.'nt ['o^t. t-.he corn
cLcuj. i b;-. uicx ciui.TO.tia.tlt ocrA. Ihtre wj.i- ao *rror in the moli fio-ition
aa both oi.iea oonoole t/.at tr^e cor.tr'ict oy^l iai for t^ie leliv»:ry
of ciorohantablt; sorn.
Both Lii'jtsy tf*ndcrc4 tc tLr QOiJrt aftvsrs.l lr«!tru:t3 or.s layinrr
lovm c.iO rulu ^.s to tha burden of ,:.coof in Acccrlance vlth tbat
statedin Irccjuoia Furnaofc Co, v Hariwari" Co. iCl 111. or. c;.gc y.
ani the oourt inotruoted the .'Juiy ;jiCCOi:<iirigly. Cor.plaint i« .Ti-,-i«
of the afpelle^'a inatruotior.0 ^.nd the niodif ir'sjtioii :;f i.arr.a of
ap^iellants inatruoticne upon this 3Ub^£ct. /icpoHiat t^niersi at
Isaet five inatructic ts in which the rule vvae stated io livsn
by the oourt and whether the rule ^aa rigat cr wrong, ic applied
to t.-s xajte ci thif. oaee, -.i , ell^-nt is ester vcd ,frcn: nc^
conplaining with reference ther tc. ?prlnger v City of Chicane
Ijb 111. 552; Mclnturff v Insurance Co. i4f 111. 2^ ; C. C. F.y. Co.
V Hagenback, i>S8 111. nQC .
Appellc-.i.t tendered aru-. r.it court refueod hia ir.utruotion V.o*
S» <fhich it' If-ngthy, im'olved ^ni n.cot cf the prcvleionr, of vhloh
are ccntaiued ir. other InetructlcnB. Apj.r.:.ant ■.-onter.ic th^t ite
rafuaal wco error hscuuse it arncur.ocd t .e rule that the iury
ahoull not oonallcr the question c*" daroage* until they had first
.' rfojsaid 1
. wU
.XXI XOfe .oO
^'■OijfiO'xl alii9ti,*ii
.aoitoij-
nsvl:
t92-
rort ajotl, x:a<:7qoJ'as
--« .ilL i*;» .00 ao^ivcii/ertl
.^■' :i3i:5'o;ji*enjt air' aa uuc
■■:u
.XXI aa
,3lo£(3ni;ajH V
... . .-A
.3
Q3tt.l6.i 'irif quGotion of liabilj-fcy. T7hile in pRrsonul ir.;iury :ini
r.C'.r.y oll'cr oa-eer. t^e nature 1 ordtr i'or ^ i'iry to pur.vue in clonal i-
ering ':he ca.Be v.'cul:l be to fo-.loiv the. rule announooA in '■At in-
atruotion t.v.'i un metructJion -l.ireot.in.w; tlu^rc tc Ic bo .vouli be
proper, in t, Oc.eo liV:(» the present nhere the c^uestion cf i,%riif;ci
a.ncl lic-.biliby ur« 3o cloaely reisited there is nc 3ubs*-:xrt'' al
reaticn ;'cr giviUj-^ t -o in&truobion i-rd its refusal (r^e net nrror.
Strathta^n / U, t:. 9x.Py. Co. -13 111. ~>b2) C. C. Ry. v Hagonbaok
-i^e 111. 390.
CoiJi^lc^-int :iU .-;:.. u. o. th'. r iaa--- oi. o". r^ar of .-. '
lni3tru3tior,B. The rftfused InatruotJ ons wers iioctly r-;. .■ ■ -jn ::
jiven inetruotiono. The ^i:ry v/ae fully ani fairly inaliruct.aa in
ucaoriunot: :.:.■! con':it;raotion placsl upon the oontr:*cl! by tha
c<purt iini -<.':ur. -djL for botr. 3lls3 un.i /rnather tiat oonatruo'.''
rt2.9 right or ATong- t"-? court ii i not srr in rsfucint,' '' " ■ > r i:-
tiona.
I-^, iti 3,36ir;n«.i -^^ rrr-r oy ..fipej lant tVia,t the cour* firry: . in
net -giving ^ n^w tria-l en t /.e ground of t.\e aimioaion of ir/^atf-^ial
prejudicial evi ience . '3?e ars of opinion that th=! nourt 2i i ';: : «rr
in thit rt?Bpect.
Lastly it is cont'-nJiea I*.ax o.-rj Amount of xx^-":^)^,: .' 'km-
the ,1ury ia not eurpportfji by the eviienoc. Counsel on bc'h i.i.'a
agree on -chcs .-i.isafjur'? of .iatr,e,ge» idkid ic/.n by the ocu"!;. The Sw-ncont
found by ths jury is --veil '-vithin th-3 rs-nge of t^e ovilcrce.
Finiinj- no Trversibl« error in the oviirnoe tht juA^;' ^-t*
wili b-3 affirmad.
rrt.
; j: 1 8 aof
1"
:'£i
STATE OF ILLINOIS, I
SECOND DISTRICT. ( ^''' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFPY, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foreg-oino- is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the j^ear of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
7 ^0
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COU|rT , ■
/
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the ^xth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand jRine hundred and
twenty, within and for the Second C^strict of the State of
1 11 i n^o i s :
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL , />res iding Just i ce
/
\ Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS/ Justice
\Hon. OSCAR E. HEARI
;\u&i Just
7
ily, Justii
i^THUR E. SNOW, (derk. ^
.^ri«, 219 I.A^- S^^
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
Jul . the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wi t :
No. t5701.
Axal Lavahn, Av1trilni«tr&tor of the )
E»tKte of Saxton Ludwig Lava-hn, v
deceaaad.
Appallaa; I
va, ) Appa&l Boona.
Rookford and Tntorurban T?allway > _ . ^ .-». y|
)219I.^. 63 4
)'
Company,
Appallant, )
Opir lor by NIEHAUS, J.
In thla caae an opinion cffirfliinr: the judg;r..ent of the
loT«i5r court waa filad a.t the Ir.fcit tertij but a re- hearing
w^a granted to con«lder p.ore .fully the quest Lona of error
arising on the givlnp; of certain inatruotione for the
appallaa.
The appaliao Axel Lavahn, ?^a adrainiatritor of the
eatuta of Sexton Imdwlc Lavahn, iaceaaed, ooromenoe'l thla
suit a:;alnat tha appallant, Hookford and Intarurban Railway
conpany, to recovftr damages for oauain:: tha death of B5lid
vi.aceaaed. The proof ahowa, that tha ieoaased on ??unday
tha 29th day of July, 1917, in company with two othar peraona,
Tillie Lindroth and Anna Lindroth, took paaaaga on appallant »•
railroad at Rockford, and rode cut to e atatlon in Boona
county; where they apent tha day in tha wooda. In tha
evaning tha daoeaaad and hi a ooBipaniona returned to take
a car back to Rookford, at a croaaing known as tha Swaatrcan
oroeaing, Tha Sweatman croaalng, la a plank oroaaing;
and a regular atation or stopping plaoa to tat'o on, and dia-
charga paa«anger8 on appellant* a Una, Tha declaration
-1-
♦ XOVb .o'A
«fu*«vftj aivrbiiJ nQcrxdS to aJ^d^eS
. R«.l "^rc
(
(
^89 ./.I ex 2
t
r
Tt©-t;*re To srr'> ■ sStmb^cj
nrf.-t lo't ;;ii.-Ji^o,J^.t^.i.aI iiijJ-x&u io ^inivx^j ari- no gn-t&iiJS
• taXXa<iqA
Y«wXi.*H ndCfTinejfrrl f. !oo?T »tfi;ji,XXoq<i-i eri^t ifanl^s* ^^"*
hii;« "^o A'Jc?r sricf :j.^i^i;£,o lo'^i aegAaMt a«vooaT :);t jYOJtqnoo
^jBLnxff^ rro i^j&B^eof 'sri* ,»wo/le lootq sdT ,i>eaji8oefc
»an09r:«fi ler^.so ow* xljj..-. ^^nxqnoo ni ,VXeX ^yXji/l. 'to ya^ rf*^^ •rf*
*»jrfljiXXa(iq/:. n 'toifcnJtJ j»nnA briJB rf;ro'XfcnlJ oXXXlT
*^"f^ ' tMo't;i30^ fji bAOiltar
■r. -Tt..-:- " ^' -..orr^i Sniaii; ToJifoon o* iojBCf i*o «
s.3'^ • ^gnXtiao'io i^^.r.i'^ewR ariT .grtJaaOTO
•**"-^-'" ?* i^''^' ■■."■ sc^iq s*'"^^'': 'rrc^JAla i^AXi/jea a JbnjB
iin., j^.i.Xoaf »rfT .aniX e**n*iii»q<iii no aiasnans^q ajijs/lo
SLvere, and the avllenoe t«nd.e to show, that appellant *e oaru
•top regularly at this croeelng to take on and leave off
pasaengere; aiao, that care ueue-lly eisnal by whistling when
two to five hundred feet distance froK the creasing to indi-
cate that they are going to atop for thnt jurpoae. The
deceatel and the two women who were with his*, reached the
oroeaing on the evening in queetion about ei^'ht thirty, and
were awaiting the arrival of the Rockford car, at the croe*
• Ing ; and the aotoraij.n notload the people, who were
atandlng at the oroaeing ae the oar approached. There ia
a oonfliot of evidence upon the queetion aa to whether the
usual aignal was given, to indicate that the oar would atop
to take on paaeongera. The oar which the appellant oli-icie
was a through car, to be followed by a local oar did not
atop, but ran past the croaein* at a high rate of apeed;
and in paaainj etruok and killed the deoeaeed. There was
a trial by jury and a verdict and judgment for the sum of
$5500.00 from whioh this appeal ia proaeouted.
The s.ppellee*a cauee of action le baeed upon the
claim, th*t the leceaeed etood at the oroeaing, awaiting the
approach of the appellant » a car, and that unlet the oondit-
iona preaanted by the evidence he bore the relation of
paeaenjer to appellant, and that appellant waa bound there-
fore aa % matter of ieafal duty to oxerolae the higheet degree
of care vigilance and foreaight concerning the safety of the
deceaeed ooneietent with the character and aode of conveyance
ueed in the preotioal operation of ite road. The appellant
inaieta, that the deoeaeed waa not in the relation of a
paeaen^er on appellant » a line beoauae he* had never been
accepted ae auch. Whether or not the deoeaeed at the time
he waa killed oooupled the relation of paasenger forma the
-3»
. »*n«XX©Jjq:* t»dS ^wod* oi »ba»J ©oateMve erf ,8ieTj»
"i^o •▼Aol tn* (to 9iMt ot ^at%90'to bM:^ *fl. ri^i^iws*^ <*»*•
fldriv 3niJ:*eirf* ^o ijuxgxa ^XX^i/aw ttJio iadi ia-rs^rtsna^q
©dT •»&oqxi/f .tjBrfJ lol qo^« o^ s^ioj •"!* ^erf* ;tjerf* »Jjio
e;f? ti'-fc.'?f*-. ^vijirf rf^f-jtw •T«w oriw xiMiow eni edi tarn fc»»j»ftceJb
'jodM aolf%9s/p ai ^ninev^ erf? no ;gni$s&70
e:cow oiftr ^«Xqotq 9^9 btotton assarotosa •sii ha* ; :gfil%
el •Tsrf? •rorfoAO'xqqji Tito titii e« ^rrlaaozo aif^ ^« gaiJbxtJita
o.* noii'aei; 3on»jfcxve lo talLtaoo «
CiO*e .f* *erf,t a-tJioi- .iitvig a.gw Xaflgia isuau
s:!ilalo in.. ao adt «e-x63fle(it«q no ai4i;f o:f
9i?oXXot atf 0* «tjso risx«jTri* « ajaw
i£)96;^s ^c r;l:a«0'!co art* yajaq nj»T ;^j:/Cr\qola
'9Ji9omh «r(t baXXiJf ^n« ;foim^a ;|ixitfi4iq nJt tns
ioidfi ajctl CX),00a8f
-•ri;; .'TO':i/ 'jtjsjiiicf »1 nolcfa* lo aau^o e*aaXXBqqjt arfT
w* ^snlaaotfo atfj t^ beoik £•a«ao•^ ariv' ,:?iJ:*Xo
-^-ii- i9bau tMcit btiM ^tio •♦*«*XXaqc'.«; sri^ tc rio^oiqqji
lo abiJjiia'i ad* •'•rotf eri aortetiTa ad -taRaaaq enoX
-«iadd ijnuocf ajiw *njiXXaqq« trndt ba* ^^fiijXXaqqa ot «^neta*q
aa^S^^ ^aedgld ad* eelorrexa o* jttOi X#t sttMsti c sm atol
ftdi \o 7*al«e ari* jhXnrxaoaoo iWplaano" ...uiX^iv »t«o lo
»oa«Y«vnoo to ahoa Jbaii le^o* tv in**aianoo i>aaJlaoa^
J^AXXaqq* adT ^bMOi • rtstfrq 9{l) ni b9»u
futit ^^t9lB^t
' " rrjtfXXoqqji /to la^naaaaq
«»iaXct- s?il;? J-jg Li>«4aoat «doxm •■« £ia*qaooj|
ad* anTOt ^aiiaaaKJliT \C rf-t hAl-rrrmna h« rri^ SAW ad
Bi&ln l«s&l cont«ntlon, und this question is elaborattly
argued on 'both sideso "^e ^re of opinion th&t if the laoeas*
• d jras at a et^tion or stopping pl»iOd on ai.pslls.nt* e line,
at tha proper tirie'ana In the proper i;l«,ce, und in ». proper
condition to take paaeags on appellant *tj oar, ano' ^ue ready,
wllllnif and preparaa to pay the regulf.r fj-re; and wt^.tting
there to board a oar, that the rtjlation '^i' passenger ^•'aB
thereby created although the deoaAeed nn.d not yei. haen
fornir^lly accepted ss such by Uhe appellant. A corumon onxri—
ar i^ bound to acuspt. aa ptt,av3enger ^ojraona offer i;i^ th.-^mealTSS
at the proper ti^ie and pltce anu in the j-roper Biarner and
oonaition, and who are prepared , ready «ni willin.j to pay
the legal fare; an accsptan^^e of such perBonw by the
carriflr ae ph.aatsi'^nTa an:y be imilirf i un«it*r thft>« olrouj>ietai>»
where It appears, that under these cirourastanoss,
csa, the Ci»,rri«jr could not littve aade any reasonable object-
ion to the aooeptanoo ol buou v«r»oni) an pasaer-gerii, the
aoceptanoe will be preijui-n!. Thia principle is clearly
upheld in Tod* v. L. & N. Railmy Co. 197 111. App. 141,
affirmed in 274 111. 301; ind in C. & E. I. Ry. Co. v.
Jennings 100 111. 486; Klinck v, C. C. H^y 177 111. App.
lo5; I. C. R. R. Co. v. G'Keofe 168 111. 115. Tt 1h
contended by the appellant th t error .vaci oorjnlttsd bs-
CRUBS appellse in hia examination of the jurors tjti-.ted to
tha jurors hia version of the lar concerning the relation
of 'paeseng-r and carrier, and asked the jurors, if they had *M
any quarrel with t]jo rule, to ..jiioh o mnaei for appellant
ffiado objection, and the objection .*a» overruled by '.he
court. The objection -<a3 en the ground that coun>*«l for
appellse did not correctly stats t.he rule of law.
Without passing on the propriety of that kind interroju-tories,
-3-
"V^jmob .- ■'■6 dtO'i T.T«
i'^«a«i»o«x ttU ^l^jk/cii^X-i bittn^xe '^^cTsisdi'
B8V o^ c;q»oo« otf tiflxio
X*<i o:t 5;nj;XXi.v Lin v; ctw jxui ,nc i
•ri;t ^4'i»2n'^
.<ua«dq&ou«
XX'XiiftXo ai. •!:
.
,XAX .q. '
,i.ii sax eic38.- '
— ;:; De;/JiitLnyo Qjiw 10': ■>
.UU .XXI t^YS ai bss.zillA
'id* .1X1 QGX tr
ciifl'-iCi^ ditJ Y^ XstiiS-'.-;. u
TtoXiljao
;- J i.in,c
- fl J
-JO
s,r:ic.^jic jjywn.J-;v
and a«6umlng that app«lle«*3 oouneel did not correctly atat«
the rule, and thbt the court Hiight lxa.v*s properly ^uetaineu
appellant'* objection, it id net apparent how appellant
Aae injured by the queation iheth«?r the juror had any
quarrel or prejudice against uach a rul(% of law; and thle
oannot therefore not be considered e.a reversible error.
Appellant alec coxLplaine, thi-t appellee's coun^til in hi:}
opening ets.tdnent referrftci tc the fKCt, that one of the
girls who were with the deoeased, at the tirte hi": was killed^
wati hi£ fiance; and Ineisted, thai t.hitj etatenent //e;a
prejudicial. But, it appeara, that appellant 'o counael
in hid cross exaruination cl ijfcna Lindroth fflioited fror: her
i.ha eaKiS fact, and brought it to tae attention of the jury;
obviously therefore, the appellant is not in. .oonition tc
complain, because this* fact was brouf^hL to the attention of
the jury. It ie inaisted also, that the court at the
close of the plaintiff '4 evidence should have directea a
verdiot for* the appellant, because the evidence oiaurly
showed, that the deoeassd wao guilty of oontributory negli-
gence; that it ahowe that the deceased voluntarily piacftd
hlrjseif in a position of danger. Whether ha //as or ^as
not guilty of contributory negligence in the position in
virbioh ne was, *hen struck, jyas a question of fuot for the
jury tc detsrains. Ths rule is, well eettlsl that the
question of oontributory negligence io noe of fact, and for
the jury to determine froR. the svidenos; Bale v. Chioago
.junction R'y Co. 259 111. 476; Rally v. Chicago City R'y Co.
sea 111. 640; Peterson v. Chicago Traction Co. 33^ 111. ^27;
„orth Chicago Street R'y Co. v. Polkey 303 111. 233. '.^e
-4-
Si+.^.j-e vX*,tc»rrr.-
it if
90d 4a-
r»»nifoo «*»»i.
3l(* a»x(*«:
1Ia*C0Y»-S HA bWX9t
ctmuBua tttM
, tilui ail J"
,»i(j to ieit^wp
:t[t ^#«JT •rf* o;r lisittlAu *ad*i*;r«i8 ^irlnoqo
^l^sn Yto^^c.'.: a««eoai> wdt i~
:<,e^csio \'xixm4nuj^vv ban a* ij»di swojia tl .tjifld- iconoj^
-)i*rfit ^X8irt»Xv<iw
■ *aienJ: ."•■..!
nj. ft©i,rflaoq eri* rr/ 9oa»'
i\ji HiHt'x
ni IXaactXd
• ;t rro o 'x
vtui aflJ
, i»d .XXI r8£»
think therefore, thtt the court proi>erly refused to dlreot
a verdict. In thiw connect ioii attention obould alao be
called to the fact, thai ap«olaI .finrtlnga were aubmltted
to the jury ore of whioJi had rt)f*rtjnc»i to the faot of
contributory ne.jllgeno^. The sj.eolal finding on this
Bubjaot wao an followe: Do yov ^ind froii a pre/jonderano*
of the evidence, that the dooeased Ludwig Lavahn juat
before, and at tha tire he wan -atruok hy or oar.i) .l.n cwntact
with the car in •lueetion, was in the axerciae of ordlnait
cars for hia own aaf«ty ? To vrhich the jury ra turned an
affirmative anawer, No objection wan laade ir. the trial a
court, to thia 9p©oi;~.l finding;, on the ground that it v»aa
uneupportad by the eviienoe; ncr, .va»» «uoh a olains made or
urged in the motion for a nsw trial. The point ii>ade by
appellant, li. the aiotion fur new trinl, that the verdict was
againtt the weight of the -"svldeno© a-rplied only to the
general verdiot; and not to the special findinge, inaeBniOh
as the api>eilant did not claiw error ir the court below, a»
to the •peoiai findin,-;«, it la preoludad in thi^^ court,
fron: quest ione the conciu«ion« reached by the jiiry^ in these
findinge, Av^ry v. iSoore 133 111. 74; City cf Aurora
V. Rockabrand 14ft 111. 399; Tionneylvania Coal Co. r.
Kelly 15fci 111. 9; Erpire Machinery Cc. v, ^^rady 164 111.
68; Vol^ht V. Ant^lc Airerlcan Provieion Co. 302 111. 463,
Thia court aleo ao held in the case of Kri^tel v. Midhifan
central R8y Co.. 613 in. App. SIS. In thi.i ^.tr.te of the
record the matter of contributory nej;liflfenoe cf the deceaeed
80 far ae thia appeal lu concerned, is ccnoluHi\rely settled
against the contention of appellant, Appsllant contends,
that the appellee, who is seeking to recover upon the ground
-5-
flv5 f}8iT
lit Bci.9 i& ha*
*!' ';J»1,ae nvo aid ao'x «ii»o
■ i J
doime;^''
er-Sl'.
itbrtit i4i09qtt til:'
,83
that the daoeaaad -^a^ -j, pa.iaenfC'^.T of appellant ' l^ road, hae
no allocation ir: hio -ieclura-t ion, that the deceased wao a
paeaenger at th» tlfce he was kill3d; and that tha declar-
ation thersfora foea not atate a ouaee of aotion. We ure
of opinion, uhr.t the dealurat'.on allegea auffioient faota
to aho«r, that the relation of oarriar and paaaenser exlat-
ed at the time the >i«o«wia8d vraa killed,
Oa reoonai deration ol the quoatione raised oonoarn-
Ing tha inetructions »iven for the appellee, .«?s fln.i that
the first inetruotion ocm. lalned of told the jury, that if
the.y delleTe .froxi. the evidence, thr-t the relatior. of paaa-
enger and oarri-sr *xlet©d batwaan the deoeaaed Levahn, and
the appellant; arri thst the place of the accident waa a
reoognieed ataticn, «h«ra the appellant *aa in the habit of
receiving; and diecharginj paaaengara; that then it \ms the
duty of the ap>^ellant, to uae the hif^haat i«?reB of cere
and skill reeaonahly practical, ivnd provide aaid Levahn
with a aafa place to take paaoage upon the car in question.
There le no allegation in the dfeclaratlon, that the
aipexlant wart ^ilty of nef^llirrence by not furniehinc
Levahn a safe place to take passage upon the oar; and the
aipellao therefore would have no ri^ht to recover en that
ground; but the .Jury by thla Inatruction was led to con-
clude, that thla waa a prop6r ground for recovery,
fhe fifth inatruction inforii.ad the jury, thatlt vas t? e duty
of the ai^peilant, to do ail that human Ga.rc , vigilance and
foreaicrht oo\xld rsisonabiy do conaistent with the oharaotdr
and mode of conveyance adopted, and the practical
operation lI ita bualneea to prevent accident and injury to
-ft-
*.- --1
. _ _. . sej.&ct .. ■ ■ .:. . te
'it. Mr b'i r. V In'jsn or- sfti X I ijila i)a£
■Jiindll.o on ai •lerfT
'^'^.f ^ ... .tajBXXs<iqj8
ot&iftif;? *6lXeqqj9
;'n£j.i»c , to
:^- •■ roo Jrfjlatio^
. ^:^qoJb^ ftoniiY^v^aoo lo •torn Jbn«
th« laoaasod L«vahn, if the relation of carrier and paee-
enger oxiatddi and, that if Vne appellant had failed or
negieotad to perfora any duty enjoined upon it xinder the
above rule; or if it had aone eoue aot in violation of the
aboTe rule, which reeulted in the injury and death of aaid
Lerahn, then the appellant waa fuilty in thi« c&ee. It
ii« elementary, that the ri5:ht to recover rmiet be baaea on
the particular negligence charged in the declaration;
Crane Co. ▼, Hogan a38 111. 338; ciiioago & Alton E. Co, v.
Raburn 153 111. a90« And an instruct ion which doue not
limit a recovery to the particular negligence, which the
deoxaration alleges, and concerning which iaaue hab been
joined, la erroneoue; Ratner v. Chicago City Ry, Co. «Jv>3
111. 169. The inetruction ia alao obnoxioua, becauaa it
aeeuoice a fact concerning the deceaaea, about which there
is a conflict in the evidence, namely Ihut the ieceaaed
Levahn t% a atood at a, particular ^.laoe at the oreaaing.
Instruct ione Noa. ti ana 10, also, are dzroneoua for i.he xeaa**
one etated, naj3.ely , tJtiat they ao not confine the right of
recovery to the negligence oh&rgeu in the aeularation*
«^e are of opinion , that thd errors in the instruot-
iona, ><ointed out amounta to reversible error; an.i that the
caae ahould therefore be eubicitted to anothar jury.
The judgiiient ia therefore reversed, and Cbubti reuanded.
poveraed and ramandad.
-?•
*ilJ Ic nol*«iolT fll i-ojs »ino8 »noJb t)«d Ji ^i to ;»iiri •vod«
1>1«6 10 Ati>»b bas xiulai eri* iii t)©JXi/e»a dolrtw ,elun »T©dji
iaoi^£i«Xo«£) tfl^ al i)»s^«ao tons^iXsAn x«Xirroi^i«q axi;^
.r .«0 .H ao;MA ^ osjaoixCn id6£ .XXI 68;^ li«aoH *▼ 'OO •a4ia0
vJl;roin*B«i: no? baK .Oes ,XXI CSX naucfjaH
diij doXttn lOonss^Xsan iJsXtfoX^icjsq od^ oS yio7oo«i ^ dlflixX
a»ed itii£L suaet dotA^ snlaaeacoo xiajs ^«93«XXj» aci Jjs'xaxo*];)
{;riO o^^oifiJ .v lottSAa ;«x/oeneii« sX ^^saXo^
jj. e4iu4iO«d ^ei/oixoncfe oeX« si floJt^oua^sni «ii i' *(J6X «XXI
•dsrl^r xloXilw iuodA ^X.0«£ao»h a^(;f sniniaonoo ^ojal a asau/a*^
i>96^809r arf;^ ^xixf^ -<;Xdin«n ,eo(X6^Xvo erl^ nx ^oiXlaoo a ai
• StuXaao^ j^Xq Taaix/sX^i^q ii Ja booit » M.k. iiil«V8j
'^Ab.L .,Mia»i^i> kiM ^oal^i ^0i DOS 8 •••H BaoiiOtTiSial
lo J«||X% eii<; oai^noo ^on oi3 x»^^ ^■S'^t^ < 7X««4ui ^Jo^iiu^a aao
»iioi^£i«XoaJ> 0£{.' I ido eonaiXXjtofl *<^^ ^^ y'^^'^oo^'i
-40in*«fli arfif at artouxa i>ii^ tfisill ^ aoiaXqo la ai* ai^
axl,? tati^. iXdiatatvett ocf aj-nuom* *)jo bnfaio^ ^anoi
'iXmcfjua ecf eiolaiad^ bXx/oaa aa£0
,bt>aievaa aaolaxaii^ ai ^naaijtJbxri. a4T
'•;9*.r! 9VC*':-
STATE OF ILLINOIS, I
SECOND DISTRICT. \ ''*'■ I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuPPY, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereop, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of ■ in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
">-..
\ ^,
<
■>'t.
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixtyday of April,
/
in the year of our Lord one thousand ninarhundred and
twenty, within and for the Second Dist]^et of the State of
111 inoi s :
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pral iding Just ice.
H04. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Jlistice
Hon| OSCAR E, HEARD ,/Jus t i ce
I /
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Cl/rk.
CURT S. AYERS
, s/eriff. /T* Q A
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
^^^ ^ ' the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit :
No. 6790.
L. R. Parkdr, 'frubta* of Araarioaii
TJfaJaa & rjavinga j,ank of
Baoine, Wlaoonain,
va,
J. S. Hand, Charlau R, Carparteer,
ChiiXlaa y., Padsn, 'Villiaj'. S.
pa dan and Sunny brook Farm
Sanltarluit.
A^pelli^es.
Appeal froru LakA.
219I0A. 634
)
Opinion by l^IEFJiUP, J.
In thio caae a t)lil in equity was filed originally
by Thomaa Fagan a.fc truntee In bankruptcy of the Futste of
Charles R, Carpenter, Tartrupt, againet the apf.elleefc> J. S,
Hand, Chi:.rles R. CArp.enter, Charlea M. Paden, wiilib.-. S.
Paden and Sunnybrook Farm Sanitariut* The object «aB to
fcet aaide certain Kortgugeo ;;iven by Charle* H, Carf enter to
J, S, Hand, aa fraudulent , The court auntainea t. riamurrer
tc the bill; ami by leave of court, &. av.ppleR,«ntaj. till ^'a8
thereupon filed by Fagun uu truotee in bankruptcy lor the
U8tt of the appellant L. TI. Parker. ' demurrer wo p aleo
auetained to thio supplemental bill. By leave 01 court the
appellant as trustee of the An'erioan Traces & Ravin^jb Bank
of Raoine, V/locon*in, "?ae aubstitutel ac ornplainpnt , and
filsd an an.©nded and a\xppl«rr>entai bl*l, tc »«hich tha
appellant again filed a aai'urrer. This denairrrtr wan also
sustained by the court; and the bill diamissed for want of
-1-
.oeva .OF
6tf«intT .^ibAli:^ ,H .J
;;fn.iiX.
.ff aeXiijrfO ifcfl^ .8 .L
4^88 .A.ieig ;
XXIju/i^alio JbsXil eaw Yi^Xupa ai IXicf i; d«£0 .^IriJl nl
'fTSinaXq ^ avaeX xd ^ae »Xilcf aiU o;J
d'aisXXsciqA »;f^ lo t»au
ijec^adinsX'^qLfa al(l:t oJ Lsrrijs^aua
■;y^' ^niaiiooaiW ^tnjtojsfl lo
hitA ^•tn^mM as buLlI
-T.zu.'nBt A i>eXil aim-^n ;tn«XXeqq«
ha.
oai.
«*i-
equity. Froci the deor^e diamlaelng tht> bi^.! thlu iip^a&i
ie ^.roaecutdd.
The laet aroenacjU ai^i aut/pleji-ent;-.! bixi aliegeo that
Thomaa A. Fii.2an at» trubtcs in b<ii.ijKxuptoy of Charxee R.
Carpenter, Bankrupt, on 'rscerr.ber 13, xjxb, :iii.8d hit. original
bill cf ccKpiaint a^in«t the acpeileea, praying t)...t cer-
tain nortga^e* (jiven by aai'l Carpenter to the appeiiea J. S,
hana tijht be ^st aeiie, i« irauauiant; ana reoitaa the
oourutt of th« piaaaing; tha .justaining of the asiaurrar to
th9 firrtt "bill; an<i the fiiinj or i/.e 7i-riouB ai'.nnded .'nd
supplaaental blxi«, a/i.i ihs juwtaining ox' defuurrera tlierato,
Tha blii th«n aliagaa, that on the yth i:j.y of Apxia. J.-15,
Carpintar .vaa th« ifinex in id9 air., xa, un i in pouueauion
of certain r«ai cistr;.tQ .vhich ia ddrioribdii, ^i1iuat«^d in the
county of Lake; and that on the 6th day of January xTiiS,
Tfani, clain.«d to b« a cr-dltor cf Curpontsr in the uui.^ of
$7000, OC; and uloO olaiiaed to bd entitlta 1 to reosiva from
Carpenter aa tru'^xee of i,h8 eat;i.xe of Mary A, Ileind, tl.o liuiu
of '!^3500.00 for luoney advarioed and paid i:y hiiu aa trustee
for the uaa of Oarpanteri that Fand hela no ^euurity ;.'huT<-
so aver for the aila>^;ad indentednaaa, aith^jr a» an inaividuul
or aa truj^teei tfc- t or. r.ha date riantior.ed for th« ^ui'x^cae
of laouring 4aid indebtedneaa of J^7000,00, and aaid indebted
nase of 13500.00, tha niortgagea in question ^sre ex^outed
and leiivared to Hand; th.t the .uortjagea were dixtal the
13th day of Spptsiober, l'wl4; but Aar« In faot exeoutrtd and
dellvared on the 0th day of January 19i5j ana were ante dated
for the furj.caa of hindaring lalaying and defrauding Carpen-
ter* a oreditora; th^t on the 6th day of January iJit,
-2-
i^.iii OBgsXIjB XXiJ .. ';crft©;a»Xqqi;e uru b'.
•i^js , iniBi.g«oo 10 XXicf
.offtt-,;-*;. 4. xc , , .'.X/cf Xjfc;Ji»&ai»Xn'-li^«
^oBjeiXje npritf XXld erfT
(Cit.x x^£unj»l> 1o x^ <^^c> *^^ ^^ ifjGXiJ'
heiJiXjBXo ,tn^pr
••^»:r i 5;oi OO.OOflC^ lo
-jjiiiiw '{.fizuowfe Bit i>i,8fl i>aah Jrm;f ^aaJne^jiijD lo aai/ ^rt^ ^ot
■ ■' • .1.
I
*i»-»«i***i* «;».)»<> ac/*^6!»jup ft* 6 ©an; j00#008et *>o seen
'/^ dfo/; faeajejJttQii »rl;r r he^itivlXtoi. has
^ex
Carpenter vjaa injjivanti ani had ooan iiiscivant a; ^±1 tiinea
Binca and before the 19th iay of fiaptflmbdr, 1914; .hnt aald
KiOrtgajfeB and each cf t'i.em, ojerated as ai pB»f«r9nu», aon-
trary to the providiozi of the Act* cf Cotif.reaa reiatlrii; to
Bankruptcy, un^i that Harul, at each ar..l all llmea, had r«a»-
orable oauee to believe, that Carpenter v-aw ineolvent; and
that the enforceiJient oi" ^aid tranafero of property ty mortgage
would affect a preference contrary to tl'^e proviBion of aald
Acte of ConKreea, and that the mortgagee were therefore
ff.ade with the intent and for the purpoae of hindering de-
laying and defrauding Carpenter's creditora^ ani therefore
null and void as ag;ainut euch oreaitors* That tha real
tidtate dedcribed in iht iaortg;'.ge«j, .vus h. part of tjn= uaaeta
of car>;©nter*a bani:rupt djtate, and paaee.l tc Thoit.ac. A, Faga
as truatae in dankruptoy, who thereupon beo;w«a veatci.i v?ith tk«
right to bring appropriate action or actione to havs said
iiiortgai»tt, and daoh of th-.n., r^idoved aa olouls u,.on the title
to aaid ianOi and tnat on the Uth ;lay of April 191.^^ .within
four ttontha after the recording of tlie mortgageis a voluntary
petition in bankrUi^toy /.at filt^d ny Charlea R, Carpentar; and
therdaftar on tha dth day of April 1915 that aald Carpenter
was duly ad^ludged bankrupt by tne district court of the
United State for the F.aatern District of Wijconain, and
Thomas A, Fa^an duly elected trustee in bankruptoy of the
Eatate uf aaid bankrupt; and quaiified a« auoh; and that
on the 4th livy of January ^917, Fagan aa Trustee, in
pursuance of m orde.r of ocurt in aaia bankruptoy prooeedinge,
executed acknovvl tidied and delivered bis proi-v^r Jhed ounrey^
ing to one Wallace Ingaiie for the ••al aetata dencribed in
-3-
'iS^iW^^^O
-noi. .
•H*a6")C
lit* tdv
^»#v^cj i-
aid
.•yilLe.
~c*.«.ijb.UMv
■> 4..ii,-^^i\\ fi>^r4i.MM.- bJ.v i^j jn.
th€ rtortgrige in question, tonjether with ail interes^t vl every
kind and ieacriptiun .vhi©h the oaid Thorcae A, Fagar ae Huoh
trudtoe haa in aai^ raax Biituta^ "fhio>; deed wa;-; duxy rccorii-
• d^ an^i that on the aaite day the bai:i Insalla and hiu '.vi:''o
Eaana J. Ing»i,xa axecutod tiUKnowleilgbd ar.a aulivux^ed th^ir
ijrci:.cr ieed of conveyanca tc tha appellant, uu trvutod ol the
bank luentiuned lur a^-l but«ir ilgut^titld ana intiereut in culd
reai. e^Late^ which de&d '-yud also duly ra^^urded; air.i tiiut
the a^'pellaiit thereby bboaibb vaoited v,it: all i,ha xi^^ht tiile
and ^nt;drddt in arui to c<aid rdal t^stats, and v.ith thu ri^-ht
to pi'oudJutti an<.A loaintain tiM« aotiwn* Tiid oi^l alac
allo^ea, that un tiia iuy luantiunSwif hAg9.u as truetea in
banKi'uptuy, pursuant to ax: ordei' ul tho uouxt, xiKev^lHe ;.'-ijieilgn-
ed Uiia tranttr^irtiu bu aaid "axi^ace Ingulle all claiuiu anti
demands b-sloix^in^ tu aaid hanx^rupt sst'..te, incluuiix^ axl
aotiona, rights ji aoticn, 4;i?.u»«}kb ol" aotiun ol every i-.ature
and .-aaoriptxou , twoxi vemtwu in wa,\.a 'v-iusitea xii tj.ni.ix4.i0y,
which included thb i'ltjht tu prodacute ai. acti'-ni tu -ei u.iiie
the ji.oxtgagda in tiueation* Ana thr..t Ingaiia u.ade an
aeaisniuert of each rijht tu the aj^vpeliant, •i.haraby api.'foliant
beuuj.t; viiated Aith all thu r.'.^htit -.vhich 'j>ala truatftb in butik-
ruptijy hci, to have £jui.l i..oxtgage bwt auids, and dHoiared
Told aa unldrtrui preleranoQa, Thsro aio othor alidgaliona
in the bill, but thoo^ referrad io gDrni tha o?.oiu for Uit
qua fit ion vthicb ia presantei to us for .ibterruinatlon or* thla
api;rtali naaely, whether the a^.pallant oy the d&oAa referred,
to ounvaying thts rea* autate to hiu., u,nu oy the aaaigni'.ente
set forth in the bill, aoquired tha legal rl^ht to orin^i and
-4-
:e
...._- ;.:.ii9Jb
-. .i'JlrfW
jf^eup ill ab-^sTui xo^ ndi
... Sli
eleitq Xxxlwiilxii ot
:ri
.i^
maintain thla aotlon to have the cortgagea in question d«t
aside as fraudulent preferences under the Bankruptcy Act,
The act of preferring one creditor over another, «hen the
debtor ie Inaolvent, is not of itaeXf a fraudulent act,
under the lawa of thla states it becomes so only under the
provieiona of the Federal Bankrupt Act, for the purpoeea of
th-t act. Asauning that the appallaa. Hand '«'ae preferr-
ed as a oreditor in the giving of the mortgagee in question,
and that such preference was in co&fliot vvith the provis*
ions of the bankruptcy act, and beoaH.e thereby fraudulent
under that act as to the other oreditore of Carpenter; the
duty to apply the legal remedy is placed by bankruptcy act
on the trustee in bankruptcy; and he, and he alone, is
Tested with the power to act, if in his judgment a proper
case ie presented for the performance of such duty; and
when ha acts, it is for the benefit of all the oreditore.
Federal Statutes Ann. Page 1036 f^ec. 60 b ani page 1132 Sec,
67 e. It is apparent therefore that the mortgages in
queation, although voidable, were only ao at the instance of
the trustee, and in connection «ith the bankruf*oy proceed-
ings; and for the purpose of aecurln<y the relay a mora
equitable adjustment of the claims of creditors. It is
well settled, that a trustee in bankruptcy cannot assign to
another this ri^rht and duty to institute and prosecute legal
proceedings to wet aside a preferential transfer of property,
which is made fraudulent by the bankrupt act, B«idinR~Hall
Mfg Co V. ifsroer A f. Lumber Co. 175 ^ed. ^ep. SSf);
Lovell v. Latham & Co. 831 Fed. Rep. 374;
Glenny v. Lan-jdon 98 U. S, 20;
-5-
yiXQliQf
'3JE<S'^^ =
'•;cainad p itoi
C411C»t«7
aXd«biOv figi/mUijB ^aoi»e»irp
i;§Xu iiXfil !b«£(^#nj^
j.«5d .V iievoJ
Trimble v, Woodhaad 102 U. S. 647, Lovoland on Bankruptcy
lat. Edition pa^e 488; Collier on Bankruptcy 11th,
Edition pas« 918; Lane v. Wiokeraon 99 111, 384;
Le Seure v. T'gaver 108 111, App. 616, Fron. the author-
ities cited. It l8 clear, that the aiipellant did not, ana
could not by the conveyance of the real estate alleged in the
bill, and by the aaeignitenta therein narrated, acquire
the rishta and duties of the trustee in bankruptcy to pro-
secute and lU' intaln thia euit and in Ita present forni i»
not a suit for the benefit of crBciitors. The demurrer
was properly auatalned; and the lecret disDiiaafcilg the bill
for ^ant of «quity , la affirmed.
naoree affir&ed.
to;fqi/a liaise no Jb«*X»v©J iV;^d . , i taerftoof .v eXdmliT
,rtJiX voi^uiJineiH no leirioD ^981^ agaq aottib2. ,iBi
i>8S ,XiI ee nocxfciioi oJ JSXE? e^iiq aol*lb3
-lotiiuA 6{iS mof^ .8ia .qqH ,XXI BOX TsrAe^ .v eiA^a nJ
i>n« t*on ftifc *itJ3XXeqq« a: ^i£oin ^batto tttlit
•Ai ai hasaXXA e.tj3it«s Xjsei •ff;t to Bon-exf^vnoo 9di yd ^on bLuoo
eilirpajs ^ivBitjEsiijBn nisTorf* 8;tn9JirT5iae« 9di ycf iinjs «XXl(f
-oiq o* yo*qin3{nad nl ©6^8ui:;J ©rf^ lo ti»iifui> iin^ s^rf^ia arf^
ml araol ^fl»«eiq e^i nX baa ilm Bidi atsial «« i>a» mifuo^i
tenunaft erfT ,erro*tfcS50 lo ;tjtlenecr erfit itol tix/t a ioa
iltd a/f^ ;;^;hABai:j:&Xi esnosL Bd& bne ^Jb^ni^^Bue yXi«qoTq aav
,;n»anJ:!tl£ fil » y*Xup* lo ;tn«w lol
.isstaiilt^ »eio»r:
STATE OF ILLINOIS, {
SECOND DISTRICT. ( ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing- is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my ofBce.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and aflBx the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COTOT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the s/xth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand lAne hundred and
twenty, within and for the Second Di/trict of the State of
II 1 i rio i s :
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, p/es iding- Jus t i ce .
\ /
^^. Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS , /Jus t i ce .
/
'^Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD ,/ Jus t i ce .
^ /
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Cl^^k.
/
CU^T S. AYERS, Sheriff. ^ m
219I.A. 634
X,r^'
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
' ' the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
219I.A. 634
Gen. No. 5331.
Hero FariiAC* CoB<pa.r.y, a.-'pslla.rt.
V6 Arpca-l from }l~nTy,
Sohool Diraotcrs of Dlat.riot Kc.
41 cf Ilcnry County, Illlnol-T.
appc21eaji.
Niehaub, J.
In thin oaoo tl-B appelleos 3ohcol Direotcrc of Dlatrlct
No, 41 of. nenry Count.--, r^ntarei i.vito u contr:..ct. oi^ii the appellant
Haro Furn&oe Comriany, lindflr tho torrno of =-hioh ths r.Tior?llar."^
b.;]rr.?di f.:r ths 3um of (1,1^. CO to Inati-i:. a 'k/rc Furnace, in 'he
sohocl houarv of 01 at 'lot !Ic . 41; uni -[^ucr-.nteeA, *nat t^.t iurnao9
";l"it;n ina''--uHsd ^^" 'r'hft oornr;b;iny -vould >»f;'i,t the oohocl hour.-j -co 70
laiTsas 5^hTenh9ii5 in ^he ooiie3t •.vaa'tlier; -.ni kcrp ^hc floors warn:
u.nl that it vould (ieat t'.is rooc; e'-'enly. The guaranten vras -rade upon
'oi)s ooaiiUion, D-ut tiie cppelloea woull kfiop the bui j.iir.p; in
'thi'jli the ruinuoe v;ua ing'/Ulled in a reaeoiubly tight ocndition
(meaning tight founiationa, fiocra, vviiTlCflj, io-rf> ?. n 3 oeillnga.)
Tho furnaoa * aa installed in Iht school hoage an ler the oor.tra-ot,
but it .t>.g found fif^t it would not haat thi?. aohcol room f-'<-n2y,
nor to A v/^,r.uth o^ 70 iecreoi.. Fahrenheit, noT rfouli . -i- the
.floore y^Tca, Thi appellee therefor- r-fusel to pcy th« appellant
tho ikSiount !jl»..iji.ei tc bs tue ur.der "■ c oontr,'i.:3t, and this ;uit
wad therefore corra^enoed in the cirouit court of Ticiry 'bounty.
Tua trial of T,he c».eo resulted in ^. verilct c 1 ^ui^^-re^it in favor
of the appelltjeo, from whioh ^n a^^peal is pro e-^ cute J.-.
The only qu*»3tion ar,2;unl on arpca.! i«, •■hf.it th^ verlicc ie
contrary to th& evidence, and for *hat reason ough* to be
revsrsud. It is claimed by the a.ppeilant, that if rhe furnaye
i&,iiel /to lisat the sohooi room rtveniy, i-n i to t. warmth of 7C icgrees
Fahrenheit; and did not keep t \e floora .T&rm, l,t .r-.s beciuae,
the appellee hii.d failed to keap tha aohooi building in a reaec-ibly
■iOJtll'Xii'i OI'JH
*Cl£.i.l F . i » Oft
--.i.r- "1 Xocric :
T-^at or * r rftrfr.?.'^ je c:t ion
.beJyosBotq ai Iji_ c.ilw aioi'i ,e*bX*oqqja arid- ^o
•^■'5-'-. ,.?«7.^; ..'.•: o.t in... ,Yi-nev.*. mooi Xoorict ..:■!■ J-aSil o:?. taXiji'l
tig";;1; cc-.ii'-ion, *a rsquix-A oy t..t co)ii;.ri,«.-)t. ^rxisther r-.iie appellee
iii, or .11 i not, '-:>.£ ,. Ci^iwi-tiun of luot * c r ;:he jury; ^^r.a ; ;ie Jury
hotkrd fevlisrjud oonuaraiii;;; tiitft rsiuttex. Tj.is picoXb bitc*;, i,;i^t
ti,p..)oiii!t«i», i-ropurat^ry to the pul ting in oi" the rurna.cd» wvcr-r.?.uledl
tue aohool buildiiig; tbw wesa-tVxur lvOi..rio -a&i'c ij,onc cvtr; touj-iiing
va-per yai ur.dtii •'ihe wetitli^rtci-rd*;; c,x-i nc-w tce^t.-er boardsj put en;
t'~;t? 1 oujioi-tiout' vfcrc i;i.i. chod Uj, ill oOii.fc place**, ^a~ :io.-i.G dcv. in
Oul'itsr tjl£~ooo; tLi.t ti.tjrt v.'crt^ i.e.* .vii.aowu pvo iii, ^.i.J i. i.e., acor
cr. t^c lu.iij.c , :ht;rt. T.x-si t- rca&ciii-tle .^Ixort r.-Je by Ihe
:».i'peIIeCG to put the ti-ilding ii; u rt-j-feOLAbiy light ooaa-lticdt
Whether ■tiibae rt.-f lr>. i.i.A u.ittri.t:cn6., ..i..". i-(nortuj.o oi f rjfe
bxiij-diiit; i.t.-.. roucluTiciii., put V-.e Li^ij-diiij, ir. a. i '.-a,tOij£.bly right
conaitlcn ;ri.f? t^t; qut-tetic:: ir. ','cntrovori;y . Ti;..« jui> *Lo "aeaicL
tiic ovidonoe ^vx.d i^u.v ti.e witncu&se, iouna t,iia,t the ouillirig jra-e
iii roa-dCiiably tigr.t ocnlitlcr. wlisn tht furr^c-oii v:^,8 i.o u.-t^.
Tlitre is> GUi.'xiolor. t evluencs cr. ~h£.t pclj.t 'in ■..ic reocrd 'ic
v.'urruu; t.;e ^ury in rouching Vmi- veriiTt, , Thiu oour' ■.■cula
lio*. be Jaatiflcid tlicrafoiu in holiirig tLut the v&rlict Li ;-:^nifestly
agulnat "^-he veislit vX? M-s evllenco. The judgc-*-;r:t i;. afzlr^^cd.
,. '! • ^L1L
..ii- •!?-;, no:. sutTSiiva Lnt^ari
..Vli tt.l;, .UJOl 1;T-. ^i:; it- £ tii'J
L • . . . "31:^^-; :i i .:. . ■ > ici
yita? r.-,Ii *i-«i;^ 'dd .ton
STATE OF ILLINOIS, (
SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^' I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFY. Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my oflBce.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day ofApril,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundrgP^ and
twenty, within and for the Second District of/the State of
Illinois :
Present--The Hpn. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres iding->©us t i ce .
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justicf
HonAoSCAR E. HEARD, Justi
ARTHUB^ E. SNOW, Clerk
CURT S'.\ AYERS
219 i.^- Q^^
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
} the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and fig-ares
following, to-wit:
No. 6836.
Muelier Grain Company, )
Appelloe; >
) Appeal from peorla*
Chicago, Burlington & Quinoy \
■Railroad Company, '
Appellant. )
Opinion by NIEHAUS, J.
2i9l.^-^3^
b
The appellee 'Juellor Grain CoiTipany, oon.irieoced thie
■uit in the circuit oourt of Peoria county againet the appel-
lant, Chloago, Burlington f- Quinoy Railroad Company, to
recover for a osrload of oats, which had been lelivered by
the appellee to the appellant for transportation froE Oak
Hill, Illlnoie to Netrport News, Virginia; and which it le'
alleged in the declaration the appellant failed to traneport
and delivery whereby the a pellee lost the oatc» The
first count of the leolaratlon ohargee, a failure on the
part of the appellant, to safely carry and convey the oate
to the destination; and th'9t ths appellant eoid and dlepoeed
of them, and retained the prooeeda of suoh sale. The
aecond count alleges, that the appellant carelessly, negll*
gently and reckleesly herdli^d and inarag;ed the car containing
the oats, and that on account of suoh negll'rence the ^;rain
wae wholly destroyed, and rendered valueless. The
appellant filed the general issue to the declaration, and the
case prooee-lcl to trial, which reeultel in a verdict, and
judgment in favor of the appellee for ^161P,59. Fron. this
judgment an appeal is prosecuted.
-1-
.aeea .oh
( J ^n JBqnO ^t f ^-^ -r :' 1 « X r - r ;• V
g g A ( .^n-IXeqqA
* . ,aUAHai^^f Yrf nolnlqO
zldi b9oa9smoo i7n«qao0 rtijBif) i&XXdijM ••XX»qq« adT
-Xeqf^A »rf* ;^anl«s« ^fauoQ Mtro9°. Jo Jnwoo iMx/otlo erfj ni tlum
oi ^riaaqtaoO bjiOTXi«fl yonl^P * no*2"iXijjS .cjjiojtriO ^;tn«X
\M l>»t»viXd^ neoff fejiff rfoirfil ,#«^JiO lo Jb.<8oX'rj80 « lo"^ levo^ei
ijiO aoil noi*A!ftoqafTj8iti' lo^ trrjiXXeqqia •rf;^ o* ••XX»qi* tdi
"91 ti rfolxfw J)rtj3 iJBJtnXaai^ . '0.yw*Pf o* •lorrlXXI ^IXIH
*toq»n*:tJ 0* AeXijBit ;>n«XXoqqji Brit not t/iij>.l09b •di rri fcejaXXji
©rfT .aJjio 9rf* cfsol esXXeq « •ri^t 7«f»T«rf* ;TeviX«t l>n*
9rfJ itc ^rultaJ » ,»o^ij9f{o rio.ritai.^Xoeh »rf* lo *nxA5o J^aiil
•*J80 9rf.-f Y»v«oo l>rrj8 Y^tjso ipl»!t*8 o* ^JnM»XX»qqji erf* 1o *i:«q
i)«»oq»j:Jb ^f^JR ^Xoe *n«XX»qqjB erfif isdi btiM ;fio2;tjRnl*e«Jb •ff;t o;t
•ilT ,0X48 rfoue lo 8f>»»ootq 9ii fcsrtJta^ei in* ^marf* \o
•^iX^sct ^v-^»«eXe*s«o ^fnjiXXeqq* ed* JisrtJ ,e»j»XXJB drti/oo tnooas
Saiffi«*noo -xso erft f>esjsn«m JhirA fcf^Xhrtarf vXateXjCoe? bnn yXtrrej
nlao;?; erf.-t eoae^lXgait do«» lo Jnx/ooon no >8rf;f fcnj» ^mtmo erfit
9rfT .naeXexrlAv fcs-xdfcnsT ban ^^©YoaJiefc Y-tXorfw b«w
s.lcr ban yttoltiMi&io^b BAi oi tifsti XjittsrteTj •?(* heXlT: *fr*XX«qqjii
bfl« ,*oH>i:8v « rri: tJs^J-Xysert ffolrfw ^iMttt oS bsheeooTq ••ao
• irf* .aoxl ,9S»SI8X0 iO"i WXXt'qqji «iri+ lo aov^B^ cri *^»i^IS^u(.
tl>ej'£/oeeotq si Xie»qq« riji tnera^Jj(,
It is contended by the appellant, that the appellee
had no right to recover beoauee under the terme of the bill
of lading, which w&e ieeued by the appellant for the trani^
portatlon of theae oata. It ^aa a condition precedent to a
recovery, that the apj^ellee make a olaim for the loea in
writing to the originating or deliverins carrier within six
nionthc after the delivery of the peopdrty, (or in oaae of
export traffic) within nine montha after delivery at the
port of export; or in case of failure to rnake delivery, then
within aix monthe (or nine months in oaee of export traffic)
after a reaaonable tine for delivery hae elapsed. The proof
ahowa, th?t the oats in question were tranaported for export
traffic, but were never delivered at the port of export;
that the appellant wae the originating carrier; and the
Cheaapeake & Ohio T^llroad waa the delivering carrier; th: t
the C,C,0, Sc 8t, L, Ry. Co« waa the connecting carrier; that
the car containing the oate was wrecked while in transit on th?
C.CC & St. 1. Railroad; and had therefore never paseed Into
the control of the C. & Railroad for delivery at the deeti-
nation. The appellant received the oata on the bOth day
of Auguat 1917; on the 10th of NOvewber 1917, after the
appellee had received notice from the C.C, & Pt, L. Ry. Co.
of the wreck of the car containing the oata it filed ita
claim for danagea with that company; no claim waa filed
with the appellant. The notice of the claim which waa filed
with the C.CC A St, L. Hy. Co. -'aa tranamltted however to
the appellant; and it had in ita poaeeeaion and produced on
the trial the original claim papera which had been filed with
the C, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. ^e are of opinion, that the
«-3*
XXi ) tm^t* edi: tobcxu eex/JBoed zevopei o* *rfgli on Jbj|/1
-•n*n* »rf* 101 *fl«XI»qq» erf;f ^cf tci/sai sjbw rfoJtrfw »jxilfc*X lo
aeijeotiq fioiJJtJbfioo jb e*w :fl »a*JBO ^ej^f^f .%p aolt»iiQ%
rti BSoX d-'fJ- Tol mJtjBXo js e;;{«ai eeXXeqqjs odd- (tjftrii ^YsevooftT
xl8 xiJtrf;fiw tBl%r£0 grcJtaeviXffc to sni^isnXaiio ©rU oi snitflxw
lO 9GJ50 nl lo) ,tf*lfcqO©q erfi 10 x^^V-lXtt »ti<i a»*l* ■rfJnom
:a6vlXeJh i©*1j5 •rtJnon enin nlrf;M^ (ojt11*i* ^loqxt
rttrf* t)ft6VxX«Jb e;fl[*Tt oj eTi/Xlfll lo ©a-ao al to i^ioqx* lo *ioq
(omjei:t ifioqxo lo ea^o ai adinom enln 70) sd^nom xXa nid^lw
looiq dn'T •i:>e«q.8Xd siui ^iBViXftJb 70l tini^ sXcfAnosAei jt %&91«
troqxe 101 hbiTrzoqanjiz^ ©vvw noi^^cej/p cri tif^o t((>t tjtdi ^awodp
;daoqxe lo d'aoq oxiJ' ;tji £>oi9vX.X0x> aeven eisw iud ^ulWrnxi
9ili j&n« ;xsJlii«o sniitjutlsXio ed;r d«w !fn«IX&qq« trf^ isAi
i--A^ ^zsliiao S"^19VXX9J> exf:^ ajiw X}jBOiXijiH olrlQ >& aaljieqAaedO
t£Ai ^leittijso gni^oennoo tdcT e«w .oO .yii .J .^8 ib *0*0.3 BCli
»iii no tlaaAxi al aXidw t9^09in a£vr a^jio ail^ gnXalA^noo i«o ad;r
o;rtit .oaaajsq asven aioleiarfit f)*ri £>i« 4ij«oiXJl*J3 .X .#8 A .O.O.O
-Jt:tBaJb arftf rf^a if^eviXel; toI £)«oiX1jbH ■& «0 aittf lo XoxJnoo ad^
Yjg^j xl;t'Ob' 8cf;f no Btso ^rli bertB09i itrrjiXXtiqqji axIT ,aolijta
adJ tis^ljs ,VXex itcfiaavoK lo rftfOX ari;^ no ;VXex itiu^A %o
• oO ,0.0 ad* moil eoX*on beviaoea Jb*d aaXXaqq*
»fi DsXil il ad-AO ad;^ :^alatjiiaoo tjao Bdi lo ioaiw ad* |o
i>i»X.: .viiv^q^oo *Ad* d*lw aa^janjit lol 0X4X0
^e-t^ :? 10 aoX*on adT .*«j»Xlaqqji ad* d*Xw
l: levawod ts**ifiianj8a: .oO .^H .•! .*a il •0,0,0. td* d*lw
no £i60xd>oiq bas noiaaaeaoq e*X ai bMti ii trtju 4*n*XXaqqja ad*
doXdw Biitqsq, ailMlo i»ui^i^(i •At i4t%t |b4*
,jO .yH .J .*8 A .C . c?d*
notice of the olaim filed with tbe C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
whloh -vaa the oonneotin^ oarrlar in this oaee, must ba
oontidered under the olroumatanoee, ae notioe to the appell-
ant, who wae the originating or initial oarrier: The
oonnectlng carrier ie the agent of the originating or
initial oarrier for thia purpose; Northern paoific Ry. Co.
▼. Wall 341 U. S. 87; C.R.I. & 8. Ry. Co. v. Linger 156
S, W. 396; Overton v, C. etc. Co. 160 S. W. ill.;
Lewellyn v. P. li. Ry. Co. 185 111. Arp. 1?1. Hovyever under
the Cunjtiine r>roviao to the Carniaok Amendment of the Inter*
at&te Conuneroe Act, which waa paaeed March 4th, 1S15, no
notioe or filing of olain i» neoeeaary, where the injury
complained of, or the lose or da.tr.age of grain in tranelt,
ie the reault of oareleaeneaa or negll'^ence by the carrier;
Conover v. iVabaah R, Co. 308 111. App. 105. And thia oaee,
in addition to the proof of the delivery of the oa-te in queat-
ion ae an Interatate ehipiuent to the e.ppellant, ae initial
oarrier there wae proof of failure to deliver to the con-
aignee. The failure to deliver to the oonalgnee la pre-
aumptive evidence of negligence, snd oraated a liability
under the Carcaclc Amendmenti Galveeton H. & 8. A. Ry. Co.
▼. Wallace; 323 U. S. 481. The proof of negligence waa
therefore aufficiant; Chicago & 7., I. R. R, Co. v.
Colllna T>roduce Co, S35 Fed. 857; Nono Tuok Silk Co. v.
Adama Expreae Co. 166 111. App. 519; 111. r^yxstom ^alloring
Co. V. Adame Expreaa Co. 158 111. App. 374. And under
theae oirour.etancee it -.taa not eaaential to prove notice
of olala or of the filing of a olalm at a condition precedent
to a recovery.
-3-
.;*«fnnoo ef(# ijaw rfoWw
:T9J;T"rsc Xslr^/ " nlvJtTo ♦rf^f 9cmv odw ,Jfl*
. .'• iT9 . . I*S XXjiW .y
;.iXI , . . nocrasvC jSPS .W ,8
. . ,oO .^fff .* , . ::x^lBKtd
•<t&ii: eintndinA jIoj3iijbO 8rf!^ o* otivoie •niJWU/O 8fl;t
on ^ai0I ^rfj* rfoi-8M bsae^q &*?/ rfoJtrfw ^rf'oA •o^teaiinoO e*4*B
vtu^at mit »i»avv ^YUaseeosn ai initio lo srclXil tto aoi^on
^.m^a^-.■'U' ni aie:;/- io »^»jRft to vaoX drfit TO t%o h»nlMlq,iaOo
;7«lTTfO ^flj- vcf »0fT9"rJ^,C:?prf TO ajiansttoXeiAO 'lo tXjjaai »rfi •!
.^c^i c = ;II SOS .oO ,-T rfBj»orjiW .▼ ^avOnoD
-;f*a-r: looiq di* o;t. nol^ilihje ni
;:^einqid[fl •^Ktfitsfiii fti 84 fToi
L e»*iTc>t«aor , «ixjXI«1l triT ,a©«siB
'l&tltdM.i ^»on»siXgafi lo •o/ietive avl^qax/s
■f'^t'SflvXjBr iitnemJbnaaiA io*a««0 9tlS t&tau
a^r 3on«r'iiie»-> ..nr. ,x8* ,3 ,U CSS ;aojiXXj8W .v
, , 'jyfaoirfO ;*.Toiomjja ©toleterfJ^
'T ofTftT, .j^^-^ aC8 .00 aoufcottr •rtlXXoO
^rs ,c^qA ,XXI aaX .60 Maiqx^ sriMbA
;?.X .(iO •«a4qx3 •^3«^il .v ,oO
^nea iott bji9 ti t a o/t4 ^ a mxr Olio aadrfif
ojrXo 4 lo srtlXJtl arfJ lo rto mIbXo lo
•Xtavobit M 0*
It is also coDtendad, th^t the proper measure of
damages to be applied in thle oase> vae the one provided tor^
in the bill of lading; namely the value of the property at
the plaoe and tine of ehipment, ft Is well aettled that in
an action brought against a carrier for lose of goods which
are destroyed before reaching the plaoe of oonsigiunent the
nieaiure of dan^ges ia the value of the goods at the point of
destination; Canadian Pacific Hy. Co. v. "^eland 236 fed, 670
MoCaull - Dinsmore v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 352 Fed. 664,
In this case the oata had been eold by the appellee to the
Wheat Export Company of New York for delivery at Newport
Newe at 71| cents per bushel • <rhe oats therefore had a
fixed value at Newport News, the point of destinstion, name-
ly , the price that the appellee would have received there-
for at that plaoe un.ler his contract of sale, and that was
appellee's actual damage, which he was entitled to recover,
and which he did recover by the tsA verdict and judgment.
Appellant also contends, that the court erred in
admitting in evidence the papers embodying the claim filed
by the appellee with the C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. for the
lose of the s^aln in question. We are of opinion thp.t
this evidence 'vas properly adsiitted, Chicago & EI R. R,
Co. V. Colllne produce Co. Supra.
The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
-4-
4I01 bBblvo'tq »no »rf* ajsir ^9nM0 Btsit at bellq;i« ©cT oi aasjurut
J« r#a»^0"i<J •rf* ^o »u£av »di ^iBauen ii^tbJiL lo Xllcf Brfi nl
jcii t»ii3 hQlttbi raiKiqlcift lo ©mJ-* bnm ©ojiXq trii-
rfoJtrfw a^ooji lo aaoX tot isiTi^o a tBaiM^a td'^M&td ttottt>» rtM
9tii SabOR'gteRoo 'io eo<eIq tdt -gnlAos^'x •tot^d' he^o^^**^ *'Z'
!):e ;^^i;oq Bdi- &m shoos tdi to aulxv tdi cl Be^«ai.a& "to eix/isss
0?3 .Jbet 888 An*XeX'? .v .oO .yff blTiioJi^r njBlJb«iT«0 ^ROt&aaltM^ti
.♦aa .*tf 8?.S ,00 ,5ffl .<T .*8 A .M .0 .V ©TOmaKin - XXuaOoM
Bdi ot ••XXeqq« ^dt ^d hXos (rescf l>jBf( bSmo 9d& ••jbo •irf;f nl
i-aoqws'^I *JB x'i^'^^^^t to "J j{toY wall 1:0 YH^'flKo'^ ^oqx3 ♦«trll
J8 frjBri 8to"i»t»ff* a^jiO trt.i» , iBdenjd T«q tSTtao ^XV cTjr aweH
-•injifr ^nojtiffjnlJsef^ to i-nloq erf* »iwe"5J J^toqwsK #■« ti/XjiT ftexit
'*^:rerf;f jseviaoet evjBri bXuow aaXXsqqji 8rf? ^;srfcf «oitq ad* , vX
B*w ^«rftf bnM ^t^£Ma to ;to«t:frTOO eiif rBtaa toJiXq **rf* *« tot
jiavooat o* baXJitrre 83i» 8r( rfoldw ,as<^ti«t> Xawto* a'aalXaqq*
.Jnarngbifj; ban Joibtev itxt arft ^cf tevooet bit af( dolrfw bn*
nt batta *tjMO act;t *jBrf* ^abrratnoo oaX« trxjsXXaqqA
bsXl'> mtxio 9di snJt^bocfina ataqjsq arf* tonabive nX •^ttttttmbM
•di tot .00 .yH .J .*a 4 .0 .0 ©rf* riJXw eaXXaqq* arf* ycf
;fj!Xf* noXnXqo to ©-^ ,rToJt*eex;p nl nljitj arf* to aaoX
4 o:gaolf*0 ,be*i^itafcjB if-t^»qc'*>:q •JW* •Offabira •tdi
,j6tqy8 ,00 aoubottr anlXXoO .▼ .oO
.b«ntlttjs el (fitaniBbtrt ^i^f
^bainti'ttji cirtaffljjbtrTi
STATE OF ILLINOIS, |
SECOND DISTRICT. \ ^^' I, C-HKISTOPHER C. DuFFY, Clerk ol' the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in m}- office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
• /
'jyu
o
i<QW t>i%ik>'' pia^
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth da'iJi^' of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine huftdred and
twenty, within and for the Second Distric^^'of the State of
111 ino i s :
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presidiftg- Justice.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justi/e
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Just^Be
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk.
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff
2191.A. 635
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following-, to-wi t :
Gen. No. 6775.
The People, eto. Defendant
in Error,
vs. Error to L;ike.
John Unger, Pl.intiff in Error. ^ ^ -»- a /^ r% f^
219I.A.635
DIBELL, P. J. John Unger was indicted, tried
and convicted for refusing to act as a special deputy sheriff
when Bunmioned so to act under the provisions of the ..ct of
July 1, 1887, to secure the peace and good order of aocfcty,
etc., being paragraph No. 356h, Chc-jter 38, Kurd's Revised Stat-
tutes, and was sentenced to three months imprisonment in the
ocunty jail ani has sued out a writ of error to review the re-
cord.
He contends that the recod is defective as to the emp;^.nejd.-
m^^t of the grand jury which returned the indi:;tment. The State
has filed an addition to the record, which is su reposed to c\ire
the alle:;ed defect. But & more complete answer is found in
People V. Munday, 393 111. 191, where it is held that the pro-
ceedings for the empanelment of a grand jury cire not a part of
jrhe record in tjiy particular criminal case, begun by ..n indic-
tment returned by such grand j\iry, urJeas upon : motion to quash
the indictment, or on some other proper motion, the defect is
shown. The showing must also be preserved by bill of exceptions
to present it for review. The record does not disclose that
this suppose defect was presented to or ruled upon by the court
belovif. It is therefore not open for discussion here.
It is argued that the indictment is insufficient. Under
the sto^tute on which this indictment was based, the sheriff ot
a county must h...ve determined that in his judgment the preser-
vation of the peaoe and good order of sooiety requires a number
-1-
,:■;.:., J oj 1011; .8V
lllrads xiuqQb liJiot-qe .0 e.s d-o.:3 ocf grtxeirlsT lolt Jbecfolvnoo tmi
lo :?-L . f'rf^ lo enoielvoic: arid" 'lebujj :foji o;t oe biaomnsB nodw
tY'^atooE ::o ijoog JbniJ 30£sq adi ettfOQa o& »V88I ,X xLul
-d-jbd-3 ^eeivefl e^b'xnR ^QE 'laii/JifO «d85S ,oM dqiiogiiijaq grtjtecf t.ocfs
edj ni d-nsranoeiriqrrsi eiltnom esttcf* o# Jboonecfnsa euw Lnx; jEei'ud'
-81 ©rl* wsivsi oi- loiie Ic :l'i::vv i, f.uo beuB e.-id Ln--; Xi^t Y*njjoo
.1100
-ilsfixrqme 9xl;f ol toslsiJ ai ijoooi sxf* tJid^ ebnocfnoc eH
9j-j3ch8 odT .iaemtotbtit sdi baaiuteT dotdv Ytfirt Jt'n>^^ ^di- I0 :^tista
soiro ot T0081 eild" 03' froi:Mt/L£ a.a beltt sjsxI
lewen^ eiteXqmcc 010m .: c^0S .d-osleif LejieXIos s.di
-o- iw jiei .III £9S »x-3i;njjM .v Qlqoe^
" nsccXoxiJ: qrae 3dt '^ol BgniLeeo
-oxi/iii n^i. YO" ^^ i:rai*rc i^^Xuoltiiiq y^^ ^^^ biocei. edt
dsBup Q& noltom .2 aocgj n^ng xloire x^ beaiutei ^noad'
Bx c^08l8L exit ftfioitom 'xsqoxq laxia-o sraos no 10 ^taemtolbai ed&
eaoiSq&vxe lo llta asaq acf oeX^ *8««n ^nlwoxle sdT .nwoxte
:*-j5rfj OBoXoeiii ion aaou Jbioosi sxtT ,yieivei lol :ti taeaeaq oJ
•xxroc odt Ycf xroqx; L'sXjLra no ot betaaeeiq sjaW JosisL seoqqi/8 aldd-
.aied xioxaeuoelX) lo^ xieqo ton fiols^tsrl:?- ei tl .voXsd
'xeXjnU ^neiollttyafll el tiiQflid-olJt>xix edi is^di boss^ii^ el tl
ic ilitcexta 9dt ^b&B&d e3w taQsaiotbat z,ldt doidv no ed'x/cf-i.d-e edi
beaimi'j&eb 9v...d J-ai/in y^^J^oo -^
■admsii uj eeixjj-psa Y*®-to©® ^o ^©liio Loog JbOE so^eq sdt 10 rtoit£v
of apociaO. deputies, a.ni ho must form a judgment ag to the
number oi wliioh tho exlgonciss of tho oaso require, i.nd he
nay then aumrricn :..ny person to t^ot :^s such deputy, .nd if
the peraon bo aummonod ahall refuse to act he ahull bo
q^uilty of Li. ffiisdemei-nor, Seotion 6 of Division 11 of the
Orinin...! Codo aia follows: "Evory indlotraent or uoouoation
of the G^c;.nd jury sh.ai be deemed auf f i^iiently technioLd
und correct v/hlch st;-teB the offense in the term3 c^nd Icings
ucLge of the statute croatinp: th:3 offense, or ;-,o pl..inly that
the nature of the off jn3e mi.y be easily understood by the
jury. This indictment contains aix counte. It i3 argued
that the official chi-r>i jter of the officer v/ho atimrnoned def-
endant is not sufficiently in the indictment, Klmer J, Green
is therein described a;5 "The then gheriff of Lake County, 111:"
al-30 a "Sheriff of said Lake County, Illinoi." In e.^jh count
he i3 fretiuently described in those or very aircil r v/orda. If
the indictment had used trfo more v/ord3 and had said: "Klmer J,
Green, v/ho v^ ^ then ;ji.i there the shertff uf Lake County, III-
inoia, " the criticism on that subject would h vo no foundation.
We are of the opinion th t such is the mec.ninij of the /forda aot-
u.-lly used, I^ id next argued th;..t it is not sufficiently aver-
red th:t Green w. a the sheriff at the time that he summoned
Unger and the latter refused to a.;t. To select lc.n£:uage at
random from this iniictment, the t^ccond count says: "the said
John Unger was then and thero summoned by Elmer J. Green, the
then sheriff of Lake County, to act ag a upecial deputy sheriff,*
and in the 6th count it re.i.ds: "then and there said sheriff,
Elmer J. Green, summoned as one of said 3pe:;i:l deputies said
John Unr:er." Similar li.n,^;u:'oie i.s contained in the oth^r counts.
It i.i alac contended th.t the indictment doea not illc^o that :.t
that time v/hen the sheriff summoned linger, it wa.^ the judgment
of the sheriff that the peace ani good order of society ;-n-i the
exigencies of the c:.3e iaquirod special deputies. The first
-3-
fn'.'rns
-.0 LMttaiiV
rn r
'"■erf* fr i
-trev--- vC-
■'•n.oi'no
1/ nrfoX.
10
count i.lleges thc.t Unger wa.3 summoned by Gr-^jen, then then
sheriff, to aot c-s a speci:^! deputy sheriff, when in the
judgment of the said Elmer J. Green, sheriff of said Lake
County, Illincia," the preserv tion of the peace and good
order of society required the surr.noning of a large number
of special deputy sheriffs." The f if the count contains
similar allegations and avers that that being the judgment
of the sheriff, he summoned as one of the said deputies the
said John Unger. To similar effect is the oth oount. E.oh
of these co^^nts n .mes October 4, 1919, iinder a videlicit, as
the date when Unger was summoned and refused. We are of op-
inion that the indictment is sufficient.
It is contended that the evidence fails to orove that
such was the judgment of the sheriff on October 4, when he
summoned Unger. The proof is that a strike begtui in L.-ke
County about September 33; that the sheriff and the police
felt -unable to deal with it and called upon the Governor for
assistance; that the Adjutant General was sent to the place
and informed the officers that no hel^ would be furnished till
the sheriff had exhaused his powers; that on September 36 there
was a gathering of 3,000 peoi^le, and stones and other missiles
were thrown and property was destroyed and persona were injured;
and that the sheriff then determined or formed the judgment that
a lar^e number of special deputies were necessary, and from time
on for a week or ten days he sunmoned special deputies in 1 rge
and h.-d special deputies in service till November S. He did
mot expressly testify th^-t on October 4, when he summoned Unger,
he still had the judgment that special deputies were necess^^ry.
It is, however, apparent from the proof that the same disordered
conditions existed inihe comm-unity on October 4 as on September
26 and the verdict of the j\rry is equivu.lent to a finding to that
effect. V/e think also that the rule st-ted in 10 R. C. L. 872,
-3-
nerft aerio ^■. ............ *' " ■■^'^ eejieLL ^nuoo
©2L:J ' ' - '--^ •:.•...,.,-.., iv^a-^ .T -'--• C^ f.i.68 od& Jo taesxsl'ist
.boos •^^'- "^-' -'-■ i'"ioid-..v:i. . s.. ... ^.l:f %eioniIII ^x^auoD
nsdiai/n .lo ^i^nlfloniinue erl;f Leilxrpai \':f8looe lo aeLio
ani.i:Mio^ iii^.,o edJlil ©riT ".el^iT:ade t^J^QQ-b I^loaqa xo
:^^©ra3LJJ■t edi gniecf tsdi &Bdt eTcev.-. baj^ anolJBg'elljs i^Iimle
Qd& aeliirqsb blsB sd& lo ©no us LsnomDitrn ©xf »l:li:t9xla sdt lo
: 'r S .Jnt/oo dje ed^ e.i *08l:l9 xeXlnrie oT .aas^U nxfoL Llisa
. +ioxXai:)l:v i3 isbnu ^9191 ^^ i&cfo*oO Beotcii eVn^'bo s-eedi to
-c.„) io e" '" .'"'-■■'e'l Lrc-B i^snomnure sisw legflU n&rlw sJ^L ©rid"
.^tneloillx/s e1 tnem*oJ±<ni edJ- J-idf noinl
ed ned?, »^ iecfoJ-oO n^- ".^■^erfe srft lo J-noKigLut ^J^* 8i3W dona
e5f.-J ::: nsgocT eafii^c - .-..icf ei looiq 9£fT .logriU Lsnoiacic/a
ici noHTovoO srf* noqij iiSlijBo bar' ti dttJi Ijseb ot ©Xcf^am; tlol
■^ Xq eni- od- drtee a-sw XjBieneO ;}-ni;*x/(;LA 8xl:f :f£ilJ {eonjsd-aisBJS
x..^c -.arieinu/^ scf t'Xrjo'w ^Xed on t^dt eisoi'tlc - '-^ ■ oraidlrtl Ln£
sasild- 3R aecfmerf^qeB no i^sdi (biswO':; eld b&BUndaj -- ■. u iliaeda ed&
eeXieeim I'.^xf^o £)n£ seno*e biu. taXqosq 000 ^S lo ■Qai.iifd;^j^ a a-w
i^d:i inQtOQb'j'' --'-^ Lsmno^ 10 Leniiai&iaij aadi lltieds Qd& t^dt Lfl.j
8111.^+ ■- - I aeoen eisv/ Eai^ji/qsL Xxjioaqe 10 ledmsa ©gi^iX Ja
'J- X X lij rv^io^'Hcx- Xjjio9q& isiiouiKjje orf cj-'^J^ fi-^ "' " -' — •• 10^ no
lib ©H .< lecfr '-'^'' "r--+ aoivTee nl soli'x/qr-. ± .. u;.-.;- i. .£[ in.:
., ..fajnU Jjeno.T"" -- >.x..r-> ,^ ^^^j. y^ija^^ Y-Caeeiqxe tofl
.''"■ '■-'^'■^"r ... ._^... c..-.. X....-.JO X .. ;ij iaotagbu' :-'■* .,d XXi^a ©d
^.. \..,x xw.. ^j. aflue ©d* tx.d* ^oax.._ .^li.j ...oil :J-n9aj3q ;,.. ,iu.owod\ei ;tl
-r^K-. ,-..+ ■ -•■. :-> ' K aedoi'cO - ■ "•♦inArrnmoo 6f& n 1 JbsctElxe anoid-ILnoo
-■r *neX/-vx. ..c cx yij^*: s-'i^ *" "^^ " i©v ©d* Lob 8S
, . . '' - : .''■•* *- -'■■': ©dcf ifitd:r Oc. x_ ..uiidt ©W .Josllt©
applies to thia situation. It is as follows: "When the
existense of a person, a person^Q relation, or atc^te of
things is onoe established by proof, the law presumes that
the person, personal relation, or state of things continues
to exist ius bofore, until the contrary is shown, or until
a different presumption is raised from the nature of the
subject in question." Follitt v. I. C. R. R. Co., 209 111,
App, 81, in whth case a certior:..ri was denied. Unger's
co\msel does not question the evidence in any other respect
nor does he deny but what Unger was summoned to act as de-
puty sheriff and that he refused.
Complaint is made of the giving of an insturotion re-
quested by the People, no unmbered in the abstra 't, but No.
17 in the record, which is as follows:
"The court instructs you that the doubt which will
justify .n acquittal is as to the guilt of the ac-
cused on the whole of the evidence in the case, and
not as to any p.Jticiilar fact or circumstance relied
upon or- sought to be proved. If after considering
all the evidence in this case, taken and considered
together, the jury are satisfied of the defendant's
guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, they shoudl so find
notwithst:-inding eviry particular link or circumstance
in the chain of evidence sought to be proved m-.y not
be established beyond a reasonable doubt."
It is argued that every instruction which directs a verdict
should state all the facts necessary to be oroven to authorize
such verdict. The rule is as claimed, but this instruction was
not intended to tell the jury what must be proved in order to
justify a verdict of ;^ilty. The purpose of the instruction
w:.3 to tell the jury that it v/cs not necessary that every part-
icudar link or circumstance in the chain of evidence sought to
be proved must be established behond a reasonable doubt. We
are of opinion that it w -s not error to give th^t instruction.
The judgment was the severest which the statBte authorized.
That fact alone does not authorise xia to interfere and substitute
our judgment for that of the trial judge. We find no reversible
error in the record and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
-4-
&sii nedW" :s?.'o." i -I Tie eiri* o* aeilqqii
5;o Qi^.B&h io ©errsj-aixs
afcx/ixxd-xio; .:toti£il&i XjBHoaiceq ^noeioq Sild-
en - .:;tr:-rr edt moil i:'e8i.'iT ei noi:+qcxju-asiq d-naislliL i^
.^QS t.o- .r^oiJ-aayp at ;toe(;d0e
e'lesnU .i>sinc., ixiioli-iso £ eajso ddtiiw ni 4X0 .'iqA
d-oeqesi '^erlto Y^-e nl eoneL2v6 srlrf' noxJeeup d-on eeolj Xoeni/oo
-sL -.* Lenontaus ejsw lesnU ii^xiw Jwcf Tjxxsti ©fl eeofc ion
-aa nclto'Xirj-anl ob ^0 gxiivlg axid" lo sLi^ia ai ^rci^^XqiaoO
,oM tucf jCf'-^t;tGcfii sdJ ni Lsascfmat; on ,9Xqo©*I Qdt vd ieteejjp
:8woIXo5: bj3 ai dotdv ^bz.ooQi odt ai V L
iXiv, doiiivi rf-cfr/T rlj- uoy a;iouiiiiat inuoQ odT"
-oj:. sdif 10 :M ai X^d-tJCirpo^. n-: T'^^^a;/};
bexLoi eoa.c&Bmsz.ilo 10 :to«^i ■i-.:Xircixt*i.;--CT va^. oi a-o tbn
gniial;ianoc -lod-ljo II ♦ijsvoT:q ©cf o;t td-guoB 10 aoq^
bQ'iebieaoo basi neijs^f^saxic aidi tti. soneLivs srfJ- IX..;
e' +n.'^bn:©'ieL odd- io iiailaij-jse otv? yrtt/f; odi ^iedt'3:^oi
bc- :'.?. yojcI:^ ^&dlIOb el ..- LrroYQcT «*Ijti:;s
^:r 10 -fniX X!:^^^/oit:I . i^r.ibns:&Bdii\itoa
• oiii^j^ivQ lo niaifo erfJ nJt
.; Lnc'Yatf l>erteildi%d-as ©cf
.■lioi!i:^p.ni y^"v. Lsi/g^ussi tl
es-tn- fi/ieee;: .1 adrf' XX^:; sd-^-:*e blisode
. .itou'il-. Bi eXtrtc adT tioibi^v doue
07 Qfft IXa* 0* IsaLnad-nx *on
noi+oifTj-pr noquurq . .:; tcxLisv : Y^i^airf;
"Sfi ton . .J- Y^'^'"!; -■^i'j' XXaJ" ot t. w
xlj- al Boa^ismjoilo '^o JinxX xsXuoi
haodz-'f ijtjdci £<^,"*rs ecf cfax/ai Lovoiq acf
,aoi:'\ : aoialqo lo ai^
;:*::- ?j-s-^ t :^^teir;7:^LI;t ©dT
i.tiodSi: Z£ to^i J^dT
eXdiaiev'ri on ;:rii. , .1 iit eu: . ta&iagLjJi; ix;o
. ■•'!-^' -edj ex d-xxsagijirt 2^* ''•'^' I^-iooe'x eri-t xii TOTie
STATE OF ILLINOIS, )
SECOND DISTRICT. | ^^- I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court.
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
CJ
b *^o
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT
Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifm day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand ninef hundred and
•twenty, within and for the Second Distj^ct of the State of
111 ino is
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pr^iding- Jus t i ce
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, j/stice
J
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, .j/stice.
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Cle] _,
CURT S. AYERS, She:^ff. ^ 1. •/ i-»^"»-» O O O
V
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following-, to-wit:
Gen. No. 6796
D&.i33' Petro, Adminiatrs-trix, etc.,
Defend£-nt in error,
va Error to Kankakee .
Walker D. Hinee , Director General,
etc. Plaintiff in error
219I.A. 635
Dibel-, P. J.
John Petro was struck and killed by the engine
of a passenger train on the Chicago & eastern Illinois Railroad while
going: over said railroad at a farm crossing on April 1, 1918. He
left next of kin for whose benefit this suit was brought by the Ad-
ministrator against the Director General of Railroads operv.ting
said Chicago & Eastern lalinois Railroad, and against a Receiver of
said Railroad Company. Afterwards and before the return day, plain-
tiff dismissed the suit as to the Receiver. Plaintiff filed a de-
claration in two counts. The first count set up the statyite requir-
ing head lights upon passenger locomotives between 8unia';TO on s?-id
lay and that defendant failed to maintain any light on the he?.d of
said locomotive, anl by re son thereof Petro was prevented from
seeing the engine ani train approaching and was killed by reuaon
thereof. The second count charged that defendant so negligently oper*-
ated said locomo+ive and train that by reason thereof Petro was struck
and killed. Defendant pleeded the general issue, and there was a jury
trial and a verdict for plaintiff for ^v:io,000. A motion by defendant
for a new trial was deniel and plaintiff hai judgment on the second
verdict. This is a write of error to review said record.
The general course of sail railroad is north and south. Be-
t'.Teen Grant Park on the north and Momence on the south in K?.nkakee
County, Petro occupied what was known as the Graham farm, anl the
Railroad crossed it some where ne:.r the center. Petro has occupied
the farm as a tenant a littel over a year. The land east of the
8676 .oVL .naO
,10113 nt •fn^:;i:n9i9a
. 8S3[js3lnB>: od- loii" ev
^I.-isnaO loJ-oaiiQ , asniH .Q isilsW
Goo /' loiis ax ^lxtni.i-I<i .eta
■*^ JL, ^.
eliffw fc^.oiIiJsH sionxIII ni9*ai?9 & og^oiifD srf^f rro nxisi^ xsgnsaa-sq £ "io
8H .9iei il IxiqA no gniaaoiomi^l £ &£ I.GOiIijoi f)i£8 i9vo gniog
-fcA snt ^cf .txf^^oicT asw til/a aixfd- i-xlsnscf saodw lol nisf "io cfxsn (f'isi
3fii*.-:;i©qo sfc£OiXjtJsH lo XjsisneC lod'osild 9if* tBatJs^a lod-aii-aiaioi
^■o T9vi909?T ^ tenxB^fi fcrrjG ,£:3oiIx^H axoniXj-I ni9ts£3 jS ogjsoirfO fci^e
-nielq ,x.sfc atsj&si Qdt siolga' true aiJi^wisi^lA .ifn,sqtioO bsoiii^ tijse
-ef: js bQif^ "iJltalsl^ .isvisosH 9x1* ot as d-xxfs sdd- tsesimeifc HI*
-ixifpsi otqtste edi qu tee tnwoo taiJtl eriT .stnxroo owcf al noi^JtiiisIo
bi^~e no nvnjjbm/a nsswtecf esvl+omoool isgnasa^q ncqu atdgiX X\s8rf gal
^o t-9rf SiIc^ no id-glL xn.B al^&aiBm o* LoIIf.I: farJjas'i^b i^idi Las xsL
moil i>9*iiav9ic --re^ 10919:1* noe. 9i x^ ^^^ »9vXtorf!OooI tiaa
fl0BJ69i X'^ b&lLi rc£ -g^ld nxjsi* trf£ gni^ne srf* gni99£
■^leqo \£:fn.e'!^iL'§9n 08 i-ii^fis-xslj d-jsd* Iss'x^iic txLuoo txioosa 9xlT ."ioeigri*
iOl/ltg 3J3V; 01*Sl 10919X1* 008391 -^ xii^i* fcn^ 9VX-*-0ffi000l Xli^a JbQ*£
>ti0(; p 8SW 9i9rf* bas t9Xf88i X^isa^^ t.ii bebaelq tasbaelieQ .i.eXXia[ bas
taataQ^eb ^cf noi^" .000»0X| lo^ "ilitni^Iq lo'i *oxti5v o fcnij Xxsii*
fcnooaa 9x1* xro taQi:r£,liJ [. " -:w Xjsii* wsn ^ lol
,210091 fjXjSB waxvsi 0* "xoiia io sjxi..- ... si: ejtxlT .*oxXi9v
-&"': .'Tiroc. l.a.r fl*iort si £xc' '' 10 981X/00 XBigngg sxlT
39:i£^a.^.1 at d&uos 9x1* xio :..aci!i:oM rxrjs ri*ioxi 9x1* no .^lij^I *njGiC n99w*
9x^* .IrnjQ ,mi£x mrxljsi'' .rw taxqxxooo oi*9? ,y*^"^oO
fcgiqjjooo aexl 01*9"? .isracc ■ cisii".' amoa *i tgaaoio b^oiXi^ff
9rl* '^0 *8B9 ba.ei ed? .i^ex s tsvo X9**xX £ *n^n9* js sjs mi^l 9x1*
tracks wus level c.nd without timber, as shown hy the photographs
in evidence. On the western part of the farm was a hill and on it
many trees near the railroad. The farm buildings w^re in that
grove. The railroad skirted along the eastern foot of the hill and
in so doing described a curve. Between the farm buildings and the
eastern part of the farn was a farm crossing by which the farmer could
cross said railroad, with gates in the right of way fence on each side
of the railroad. If one stood on the crossing and looked north or
south the curve was to thevest. Access from the farm building to the
publice highway was over said farm crossing ani wast across the east-
ern part of said farm. Petro had been working upon that part of the
farm east of the railroad and was returning home. At this point the
railroad has three tracks. The west track -ms the south bound track
on which the train was going south which struck Petro. He was very
deaf but could hear a locomotive whistle on a passing train. He was
struck about 7:35 P.M., which was about ten minutes after sundown.
The clear preponderance of the evidence was that the headlight on the
engine was not burning. The evidence introduced by defendant on
that subject, when read in full in the record, is not satisfactory.
It seems probcible that as Momence, less thaA a mile and a half further
on, was the end of the run for that train and was to be reached very
shortly after sundown, the engineer either forgot or thought it not
necessary to turn on the headlight. The jury were well warranted in
finding that it was not burnging, and that the charge of negligence
made in the first count of the declaration was sustained. Petro had
a right to rely upon defendant to obey that statue. We collected the
authorities to that effect in Follett v. I. I. R. R. Co., 300 111.
App. 389, as applied to ordin^i-ces. The rule as to statutes is the
same. Whether the absence of the headlight caused Petro' a death was
a question for the jury. Under the second count plaintiff claims that
becr-use of the hill west of the tracks and the grove thereon, and the
position of the railroad curning to the east and then to the west at
-2-
erfqx— caocforfq erfo y;d nworfa :;
tl no i.n.c; ilzn ^ s..vv ■■nir'' eJ
srit tn£ B-gattitsjd mi£'i 9d& :■■
bluoo 18.^^4^ 9M xfoirfw v6 gn
etts does ao seas'.
sriS- ot "aatbliiud i>
■1.^0 nij' .... i
atai^fs i:\60illj3i srlT .evcxg
g ritiw ttaotlx^i: tijse aaoio
.*u;o ad 3^ dtuoe
^tess ;. i.-f 010 rf^i.;:^ iijse 19V'. ,i?frfg,iri scildi/q
srft "o .->••:-:.: .tjsri* iioqir gni^iow ased bsd oio-e*? .rcrijel ijijsa lo *iJ3q ni8
erf:^ vtnloq aldt 1A . ef?icii ;;nxnix/tsi e.; • ^o ta.ss miBl
ioi5i;t bituod d&uc : osri tesw erfT .a:io£ii Bsirfd- a-eM txsoiXiai
Y19V Qsm aH .oits^ iouite rfolrfw diuos gnxog s^w nJEsiJ srf* rfolrfw no
e^w ©H .xil^i* gnxesaq £ no siteirfw svl^t-ornoool .lijoo iud ^jsefc
.nwoJbnjJB led'ljs B»;tx;nxm net taods b^w rfoiriv , 'o:V :tjjoc!j; ioutte
srfc -w sonstivs ©xft ^o aoxfsietxtoqsiq tcjssIo »rfT
no -tn-ebnslst ^cf i)30i;Ldi;tnx sonafcxve srfT .gnintircf ton a.sw snxgns
.y:'to&o£lati.Bs ton ei ,tiooei sAf al Hist at b&sT. abxiw ^tosj^due ^jsrlt
3T-srfo
X'isv t'sriojsei
ton ti :frf7a0oriJ
bed oits<^
exf* £>e*o8lIoo
*Brij- etnlfilo ^'^ittniaslq ^nr
srf?
. nsmoM sj: J^rl;)- eXd^cfo^iq emssB tl
.1 ^o tins 3ffJ Bjsw iiio
:.3fia£'§ae sdt «mfotm/a isifl^s xlfioda
. txf 3 lib jsaxf arfi- no niu* o^ -ifussesoen
. :iit-gaiad ton bjsw" ti tsri* gnibnl!:
Lost &dt lo :?-nuoo ieil'i srit nl atjsm
tn^inelBt aoqu xlti ol^'trfgl^-^
: to9^"5-9 tjsrit oi asttltodtu^
tatiqqji e£ ,e8S .qqA
:. sonsacfjs erf* i9ff:f6ffW '.©busb
■:dt letnU -t^i/t ^^-^ ^o^ aol&Bsup £
o^io^sit srft "5^0 *89W iLid. 9rft lo sBis^oed
■?t gninii/o Jbijoilxsi grit ^o noitiBoq
-S-
the immediate foot of said hill, and because of the shadow and
fog and the atmoBpheric conditions then prevailing, defendant has
a common law duty to give notice by whistle or ball or other'.viae
of the approach of the train to this farm crossin?^, and that de-
fendant gave no such notice, anJ that the death of ^etro was due
to the failure to give such notice. The rule of law relied upon
under the second count is thus 8t:.ted in C. E. A» Q. R. R. Co. v.
Perkins, 135 111. 137i
"A railroad compr-ny, in the running of its trains, is required
to use ordinary care and prudence to guard against injury to
the person or property of those who may be travelino- upon pub-
, lie highways and are required to cross its tracks, whether re-
quired by statute or not. The fact that the statute may pro-
vide one precaution, does not relieve the company from adopting
such others as public safety and com.non prudence may di state.
Shober v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Minnesota Railway Co.,
28 Minn. 1C7."
This rule has been acplied to the speed of trains in populous places
in Chic, go & N. ■??. Ry. Co. v. Dunleavy, 129 Hi. 132; R. J. & E. R|i.
Co. V. Raymond, 148 111. 241; Pcrtlow v. I. C. R. R. Co., 150 111. 33^;
and Overtoora v. C. & E. I. R. R. Co., 131 111. 323. In the Dunleavy
case, supre, the court said: "Railroad companies, where there is no
exprer.s statute of oriinance, are bound by the rules of the common law
to exercise their franchises with a due regard to the interests, the
welfare, and the safety of the public." Plaintiff introduced proof
that there had been a hard rain that day; that at the time of the
accident there was darkness at that place, caused fcy in part by the
shaie of the trees at that crossing; that the sky was da'-k; that it
was foggy St thit time and the fog was rising; and that i-f one was
crossing the railroad track there going nest, the vi w to the north
would be shaded. Defendant introduced proof that it was not foggy;
that it was a clear day; that there was no darkness; that the trees
-3-
tns wot£ria 9dt lo eai/j^oscf i o tool a^.^lLsiMii eri*
Bjerf tn£-ta9lst ,gaiXi£V9aq asxi:'- i-sriqeoK^is atii' La£ gol
9aivri9xl.'''o 10 i-ieci 10 sii-airfw :n svig ot x*^t> WisI nommbo b
-9Jb iBdt tns ,ani aaoio mxi?^ e -rioTd- srf:f lo rio^OTqqjS sAt I0
sut B£'n Gits'? to Ataeb srin- ^soiifon rioue on evjcg ifnijfcnsl
noqxj tailsT w£l *o slui srlT .eoid-on doue ©vig a# STuIijs'i srfrf' ot
.V .00 .H .H .p *A .a .0 ai i)9*jjte sjjrft ei 3-ni/oo fcnoosa srit rstau
j7SX .ill aei ,8nxa[X8«T
bsrtupQ'z at ,aal£Tt 8*2 lo ■^nlaaui srfdr ni ,Yn.iqfnoo fcjsoilljstt A"
oJ- YTjj cni itBfli^^^.: Iijsug oi QoaeLuia ta£ STiso Y'^JsnifrTo eau o^
-cfuq rtoqx/ sxiilsvjstd' ec^ ^sm oriw seori* ^o v.^isqoiq to noaieq exit
-9T ledfsdv ,E3fceT:t atx saoio ot ter^pot 9Tjs bns exBud-^id oil ,
~oiq \£(B 9tu.+£ta srft .-* :il+ to'?! 9rfT .v+on 10 e&utsta yd fcoilxip
gnitqof.M3 .xot^ icn^qfwoo srit aveilsi ton asot ,noit0j3O9iq srro eiiv
.8tJ3teifc Y-''^ QoasLsjjq noa rreoo ijnas y*9^-S8 oxlduq 3£ aiedto doiSB
,.oO Y^wll£fl atoaannlM fca^ ailoqssnniiM ,Ii;£? . f^ .v tacforfS
•.701 .nnlM 8S
aeoiilq ajjoluqoq ni anl-sit lo boeoB srit ot tslXqqjs nasd BjsrI slin alffT
• HfH .3 2> .L .H ;££! .Ill SSI ,yys:eLaiJ(J .v .oO -yH .W If =8 og-oiriO nl
;|Sc .1X1 oax ,.qO .fT .F ."; .1 .v woltiisg jX^S .1X1 8^X .tnom^^zH .v .oD
YV£eXra/C edt nl .££;£ .111 X81 ^.oO .H .H .1 .3 A .0 .v mootf-isvO baji
on fi 3i&rit 9ie£fw ,B9in£qii;oo fc^oiXijsfT' rJbl^e tiwoo srft ,9igjua »ea£0
wjsX nornaoo erft '10 bsXjji edt yd Jbm/oo'' St^ ,9ond?ni:iTO ^o gtx/tijta ansTqxe
srft ^atesTstni edt ot ti^gei 90b 5 rftlw aealrfon^sil; tlsrft saXoigx© o*
"iooiq fcecutcrtni ^IxtnisX'? ".oXXcfwq sri* !to Yt9!t£8 sift Jbn^ teijelXsw
9iit to emit arit ts fsdt jyjbI) tari* nijst brsd a ngacf fcjsri 8'X9ilt t£rf*
erit Y':f ta^q ai ^dl■ b^eu£o ,8osXq t^rf- niT^ bbw 9i9rft tnsLXooB
ti t£cft jii/jt 8jqw y^ nieeoto t^rft tjs aeeaj 9dt lo at'jBrfa
saw eco -1 tjsxft ins <'r?ni 9£ft bas emit ttrft ife ybS^^ s-gw
rition sdt ot wiv exit ,te9« jjntc ^OTXiJsa erf* gnlaaoTO
{YSpo"^ *cn exrw tl t^^rit lootq l^ec: :tn£l)a9l9a .Jbsij^rfa ed bXuow
aeeit erlt t£rft {a29n:fi-^L on a^w sTsrit tiirit {X^ 'i-sLo js 8x3W ti tvSXlt
cast some shadow over the track at that place but not much; bu*- one
of its witnesses testified that it wy.s cloudy or hazy. Defendant
introduced five photographe, taken by its photogreipher on June 13,
1913. Photograph No. 3 shows the sitUL\tion as it was to Petro as
he approached the tr§,ck at the time he was killed, egcept th.t the
photograph was taken in broad day light. Defendant also . introduced
photographs numbered 6, 7, 8, and 9, taken on September 11, 1919.
It was proved that No. 8, taken in September, 1919, was not a correct
representation of the cajossing looking north at the time of the
accident, because hedge and brush inside the farm fence which shaded
the track and the view of d>ne looking north had all been out away
between the time of the taking of the two sets of pictiires, by a later
tenant on the farm. The engineer testified for defendant that he
blew the whistle as he approached the farm crossing. This tended to
show that defendant recognized this f'^ivrr. crossing as a place where it
was its duty to give warning under the cor;.n:on law rule above stated.
Whether this was such a place and the surroxindings such that such
signals should be given especially on a cloudy, foggy day it the edge
of the evening, was a question of fact for the jury, le must assume
the jury found that such a case was made and we cannot say they should
have found otherwise. The proof by the trainmen was that the whistle
was blown as the train anproached the fam crossing and that an auto-
matic bell was ringing. Witnesses for plaintiff, situated where they
were accustomed to hear the trains, testified tha^ they did not hear
any such signals. This presented a question of facto for the jury.
After two juries hive found agr.inst defendant ani the tri'.l judge
has approved their finding, we cannot say that their verdict is not
supported by the evidence or that another jury would find differently
on this subject. There may have been that in the manner of the train-
man when testifying which justified the jury in their conclusion.
Plaintiff proved by several witnesses tha* Petro was a man of
-4-
ano 'xjcf ;:^'-f' ■ '-^ srfcf isvo woi/jsrfe ©moa d"aso
ia^bnelc ^ '-'iirmr lailld-as;! aeeeenJ-iw ei-trlo
.SI sm/L ^£xiq£igo*oriq evil bBouboifai
ej3 oi*s- -- — -„_:—.-., :>-''^ ?jO!la £ .all rfq£'xgoi-0£l'i .8161
srf+ ■* i'+ itrT?,c„ ,^.IIiy - --w <-.rf 9jji_j -^ 3fo>3^* sffj- fesrio-soaqqe ari
fcsoxxtoi^frt^.oaXE iJ-njsfcxis'^t- ..-.^.il '"^i" ' -ot"' rrt nai^d- asv dqsi'gotod.q
.eiex tll tCDrfEe.tqaS iro aa^st ,6 I.. ,- . .3 bstedaiua erfqjBTSOiforfq
■*- — TOO B toa asrr ,8XGX .Tsdrrts tqaB nx n93l£;t ,8 .oTI ;t£ff* tevo%({ sjbw d"!
exf* "lo ami* e.-f* Jjb rfi-iorr ---rfv.-^ol grtleaotso adS to aol&^&nseazqBi
fcsfcBris rfoirir eons^ imijsl arfS- c - .eurd tn£ agJberl sauj^oetf ^tnefcloois
^j8W£ ^ifo nascf Lis tsd d&roa sniiool srrA to waiv srfd- Jbn^ aloiia* 9d&
tstpI >6 vo' ,a©TJJtolq ^o a^ee ov& edt "io -^aijist edt to smld- arTj- naewj'ecf
eri tBif* Jn^ns':©!; toI fcsJt^ltaa* tsanigna axlT .mi-c^t arf* oo. tnjena*
ot ^,9t^^* aiilT .^nieaorro ^^-^ ^- ^r't ftaxlo^oiqg^ arf as altalrfw ©rid- wald
ti siarfw aoBlq £ ss gnisec _ r.-ft foasifl^oost friJsJbna^ai) tarft worfe
,b9is.iB -A-o-"i '-r.ir'f ^^jsi nc ..:+ latni; gninTjsw svlg od yd-ub edi asw
rfcii-: . ,. .. --trmoiTi/a srfo Lrrjs ao^^Iq £ rfbtra enw airit TarfJarfW
a^fcs arf* ,t* v--;f; '7T^o'i ,y^^<^'"" "" ^■^"' ^'.Iljsloaqes nsvi^ ad fcluorie Bijsnsle
9mug?.£ J£xji^: - • v^i^t ^rf'^' "-- -0 noxtsejjp js a£w ,gnin9ve erit ^o
tLifoie vBn* V r-r. fri'ifi.-n a-5,^ fifl^ sfc^Bf 85ty aajso fi rfoue cf^ricf tnuol yti/c an*
eXtei ..;.mni3T:i- f^-."rf- vrf T-ooiq eifT .aal7;-rt>rf*o bm/ol evBrI
-o"*^'' ~r^^(^-f .. .^oiqc'jB nljBid- Slid- bb «woXd BvBw
rsasntJtW .gni^nii ajsw lied" old-jsm
Tl^TTtf' eri+ iBaif o? bemotax;ooj3 sisw
aj-fiaaeiq aixfT ,elJfiS£a riotra y^-s
- -. .^jffifcrtil liarf* bavoiqqa -aari
j-jcrf* 10 aonafciva arfcf ^d JbaJTEoqque
isad av.trl Y'SW stcsriT ..toscdi/e elrfj- no
. . ^i vfu- a;:,^ talliteiff; rfcxrfw 77n2Y^-t!*'88d' narfw tmm
'Ic u . alavae -'d tavotq tlt&alsll
rr^:'
.v'rxj;, -
3'p.:- ^■ -
ton
Yitm.
-aisif srf:' '■o
■reun:.
careful habits with respect to care and caution for his own safety.
The abstraft does not fujly set out what the reoorl shows ooourred
when the question was first put. Defendant's counsel objected that
this evidence was not competent unless it was shown that there were
eye witnesses. Plaintiff's aounsel then stated that there were no
eye witnesses, and a^o that if he could raise a subntantial ioubt
that there was an eye witness, the testimony was competant . rhen
plaintiff's counsel stated that there was no eye witness, defendant's
counsel did not assert that there was any eye witness Of course, it
could not be aff irn^atively shown that there was no eye witness in
any oase. At the time this objection was made there had been nothing
tending to show that there was an eye witness. The place was in the
country where few persons would be likely to be, A. similar situation
was presented in C. & A. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 128 111. App, 38. ^peak-
in on this subject we there said:
"Plaintiff's proofs iid not disclose that any one saw the accident.
When testimony of this character was first o'f'fered de-^endant ob-
jected on the ground tha+ such evidence was only competen-^ where
nobody witnessed the accident. The attorney who made that ob-
jection was then ■-.isked if he claimed there wasn an eye-witnesa to
this accident, and he made no reply. This is onitted from the
abstract. It was after that silence that the court ad'nitted the
testimony. There was certainly no error in its admission under
those circumstances.*
In the Appellate Court of the First District in Standard Brewing Co. v.
Erie R. R. Co., 167 111. App. 303. plaintiff offered testimony of the
habits of deceased and its ccu.sel stated to the court that he thought
there was no ey witness to the accident, and counsel for defendant did
not deny this, and the court admitted the testimony ani this was treated
as correct. We conclude that as defendant's here id not assert that
there was any ey witness the court properly permitted the question to
be answered. When the same inquiry was T:aie of other witnesses for plain
tiff, the objection was only that iw was not conspetent, anl xinder three
circumstances the court Aid not err in permitting the questions to be
answered. Defendant claims that thereafter it introduced the evidence
of two ejie witnesses, viz. the engineer and the fireman on the traino
.Y'ta-we nv.o ql.: toI- tot 050-331 rf*iw aticf^rf laleijso
tdiTuooo arorle ,. ~- >'f aaoi) flMzted^ «i1
f&di taJoa^do lesfuro-. s f rrnj.-^Ins'^sa , ... ;." nox:ta»up srli- carfw
STS'w sisrij- d" .•..■■ rrv. isitaqmoo *on eijw soneJbivs aM:f
on 9T^w SIS. ~ ..:.:'.njoo a *l"ili'Xil£l*? . aaaasn^txw 8^8
:fcfjjoi- Liita^ . .. ... xisi blvoo -. ^:ft oaX,e tn.- «s9e89ni-i:w oy©
B'tasbne'ieb ,a8efl*lw ex9 oa e^w stsi: teJ^ts leaxu/oo a '"itidrii^Iq
•ti .eeti/oo 10 aeerrd-iw s^js x^^ e-sw 9a«ri* *,sri* d-isae^ ;ton tJti: IsaniJoo
nx sssntiw s^js on ex-u disfft ^.£ri* nwoxfa Y't9viif£'r;'iil!tA3 ed j-on fcXxroo
§nxriton nsacf fc^rf e^srf* 6l"j£fl! a^vr noilosQcfo airi;}- arai^ exitf *A .98^0 ^nx^
en'J- iix 3X5?.' 90J?Iq srfT .assnitiw s^© njs exsw siarirf- ^3ric^ worie ot gxiiins^
noi^tsuitie tBliiaxe ,A ^scf ot yXajfil 8c Lluow enoatrsq wsl aiariw ^•r;t'iiuoo
-i.i-.fiCT^ .88 .coA .III SFI ,noRliW .v .oO .yH .A sS .0 nx ie^neesTq a^w
:i)ijBe aiQtii- 97; d-oeQo'x/e eiriif no 'nx
.d-nellocB Sii+ w-r.-; eno v-^:.: aoloexfc ton fcil; alooiq e "Hii-nifc.:"'"
-do tn^tns" si fceTslro ^stxI 8j3W le-^os-XEto sM& "io vnomxteecf
STOrive tnsd-eqmoo ^J^^^o ajsw eonsLlv© rfoxra ■t.erij- fm/otg ©ri* no i)e;
-do ,-^£ri+ 9fc£fi- orfw vQttioi:^.^: sriT .tneirioo-G an* fcaerisa^xv? vfcodon
ot Bsend-lw-e^s n£ no^w aisric Lemlslo srl li fcsifgj.- a9:i& SJ.iV noxjoej;
erft .T'oi'i bsttiao ei sidT .YiQ'^'"^ on elsm sri Ln£ ,:)-n9bjtoofi airi:.'
9rf;f ijst + larfcjs Jti/oo erf* ^oarf* sonelxa tjsxfif Tje^tli- b£w tl .toBt&eds
rratnu noieai-ntxs sti nl noTtis on ifliiijsitieo esw siarfT .y^aotrdiaet
^ .BaDn^inriJCitlrj eeorfd-
.V .00 ^nir/sig tiebnj^tB nl tott;tatQ. tsiil sri* ^0 iJixfoo et^XiaqqA edj- nl
axft ^0 YfiOOiJBSS- tm9l'!-o l^.ii.. . 20S .qqA .III 781 «.oO .H .H 9li3
jfrfgwotft erf tsiit tzu':. 'f bQfs&B Isenxroo a^jt tn^ teajeeoat aO B*ld£rf
tit ■^[i£br ^taQblQC£i sd& ot assnJlw ^8 on 8£W srreri;J"
&a+89Tt B^rrt atdt tas ^no: s&tltabB tiuoo sricf tns ^Btd& ^fnafc ton
- ; ,^ '
+i-rft *T9eeB rf-on bt staxf a * tnabaslai: as J^J5rfd■ atx/Ionoo ©W .Josmoo a^s
o* noxrf'aejjp adt bat&lmTSQ^ xlieqoiq tiuoo 9d& ansnj-Iw \9 \nB a£w sredt
atzl-^ ■^0'^ r- iwpni acijea 9dt narfW .tsiawan^ ad
asidt isbasj i: :. +x}xld' \:Ino bbw aolJoa^do 9d;f ,mi:t-
ed ot jnc.^r;9ijp ?.:t gniti-itmce 3 ton bll tzuoo edt asoa^tacauoito
aoneJbiva exf* Jbaox/fcoaJni ti ^cst^soasiL* tsdt waijeXo ^njstne^aQ .£iaT9wan.o
• nlfiT* erft no n-emeiii sxk' nxgns arf* .siv ,3sa89n*Jtw a^e owj- lo
The engineer was not an eye witneea. He »aw the body of Petrc roll
off the track to the west, but he dil not see him as he ai-^proached
and went upon the railroad track and knew nothing of the conduct of
deceased before he was struck. The firnman testified that he first
saw Petro at the east gate; that he was then either closing it or
had just closed it; that he started walking in a nor^.a! way across to h
his home till the witness got within 175 feet of himj that Petro then
looked up on the direction of the train and ran west across the
track. Plaintiff contends that this evidence in not true. The court
at the instance of defendant gave sever--. 1 instructions on this sub-
ject, which wouli have required the jury to find for the defendant if
tbey believed the testimony of the fireman. There are several things
relied upon by plaintiff a? justifying the jury in disbelieving the
fireman. The fireman testified th?.t when he first saw Petro he was
betv7een 1,000 and 1,300 feet away. It vras proved in rebuttal that at
the coroner ^s inquest the fireras^n testified that he saw Petro about
300 feet ahead. The engineer was keeping a lookout ahead and he did
not see Petro at all. It iw argued that as he approached the crossing
and the track carved to the east around the hill, he could and should
have seen Petxo ajad his action if he was running towaris the train.
It was also a matter u on which counsel for plaintiff rr.ight re^.sonably
argue to the jury that the fireman was a servant o"^ defendant sni
might desire to favor the defendant and might desire to screen himself
from censure and that he was one of the men operating the instrumental-
ity which caused the death of Petro. There may have beer tha+ in the
fireman's demeanor on the witness stand which tended to discredit" him.
After two juries have disbelieved him and the trial judge has approved
that conclusion, we feel that we ought not to say that the jury should
have believed him. At the closed of all the evidence de'^endent T.oved
to exolurle plaintiff's evidence as to the careful habits of the dec-
eased an i this motion was denied. The question thus presented is
whether, where plaintiff does not show an eye witness but defendant
pre
Jb9rfO£OTg'^5 5
^0 toutaoo sr.
*e'
■so
^exlx.*a3d" ii-sinfiij:
■ tiyna sxlT
■ ^-ib
Jnsw Jbrijs
aXiiil.. ii* i-x tsaolo' fex/j; fcsif
rioi*o9ixt s.::i .zo qu bsiool
.iCiol^fo^ " ' : "5:0 ooastaat Qdf'&£
tl i-a-.Liial3i s.-;* To"^ i-££X^: ■ Lo^Xiipi-: ' Cuow rf ofx^w' ", *03 '(;
s~-'TJ:r^+ Ijstevea 9T£ BTsrfT .n^:^iaii aifj ^o Y^ofnxrricj- sxld" bevell'9(f\9dS
sd* gniV3il9c/8ii) nl ^nut edt ^nlY*i*8i/(; g; 'i'txtrixjlq ^d" noqx/ Jba'lXatc
ajsw 9xf oi:f9*T w,sa *aiil dd n»ilw -111*89* asmeii'x arfT' .ntemstll
+;;■.. .'? ei\ie Oil .^ .-i-iiiiSixz 2ilJ JasjJi^ixi: a''i3ijoioo 3rf*
TSsai^aQ t '" ." --rfj; .+99l 00£
i/gifi wi tl , T*sT 9S8 +on
a 3x1* a-j: Lovioo :io^Xu axf* f:n^
-,i :gxixr., rn.i? oxtfa*! naaa 8VJ3ri
:-w osmeai^ eri* *^£f* ^tx/t 9^* o* ax/gT£
1- ifcns^eti 3d& icvjsl pt ^liaali d'dai®
-I ' ::: .^o i;s.^ rf* tjxi3 Qiueaoo uioi^
*-io£, ari* ioBiJjao rfolrfw Y*-t
i:)iv/ 8ri* ao lon^amat a'n^rasTl^
evexIsdsiJb 8Vj^:f 8Sl:ti;{; ovt ^TipJlA
*/sx[* Xoet aw .noisx/Ionoo tsiii
- saolo arf* JA .miil Jbeyallacf QV£xf
^. eonsJbivs . f' ■ ' '.::9 o*
^ax/p c . ' -nalj esv/ rj.oicrof: £i4i'* j ri,i; ceaj^s
s wone oa seofc lli^nl^Xq sterirr ,ieiltsriw
siq
tlxiorfe i-.i
.n;lil 'i;i;:-
fcSVOT-
iJl X/Orfs \:'.:
tcvoT :^^
-0--.'
presents an eye witne^a concerning v/hose testimony there was a
question whe + her or not it vtc.s true, anl which the ^ury rrip;ht
re sonbly iiebelieve, dil that evidence by de-pendant require the
exclusion of the previous evidence of the careful hsbits of deceas-
ed. In C. P. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Clo,rk, 108 111. 113, it was held that
evidence of the care, _prud9nce and sobriety of the dece-^sei was com
petentent if there was no eye witness and w s not adniseible if there
were eye witnesses. This has been following in many cases. In I. C*
R. R. Co. V. Ashline, 171 111. 313, equ3.1if ication of this rule was
made to the effect that if the evidence le- ves the question in doubt
?/hether any person saw the dece-^sed when he was struck by the train
the evidence of careful habits is admissible. This question seerae
not to hatoe been again presented to the supreme court. There are
several cases, however, where evidence of earful habits was held
competent, though decs' sed was seen almost immediatedly before he was
killed and in the very place where he was killed. In. I. C. R. R. Co.
V. Nowicki, 148 111. 39, deceased -.'as standing on one tr-ick of a
double track railroad, waitinr^ for a freight train to. pass on the other
track and was seen standing therein a place of danger very shortly
before he was killed. There, as here, a train came around a curve
at a high rate of sy^eed and struck and killed him and the enginner saw
his body roll off the pilot of the engine. Profif t^iat deceased was
sober, industrious and possessed of all his focul-'-ie'? was held com-
petent. In C. & A. Ry. Co. v. Wilson 335 111. 50, the deceased was
seen by the engineer almost immediatedly before she was ptruck, but
it was held that notwithsta-nding that fact, the evidence of her
c^refxil habits w s competent. The evidence of careful habits having
been properly admitted here in the first instance, the court could
not have granted the motion to exclude that evidence, maie at the
close of all the evidence, without passing upon the crelitibility
of the fireman. As the question was then presented it was a question
of fact which the court was required to leave to the jury. We con-
clude that there was such a situation presented as to the creditibili
of the fireman so that the verdict of two juries on that subject may
-7-
/
— 6 ." sr r
mo-
C "T C *•
tdixot ni rroit
ton t© tari.laxlw noi^aejjp
, ^vaiXsdait ylctooa 81
, - . .0 nl .Jbe
tionetuTq tSijeo axf;f lo soneiivs
- ns- sgentc--' ay© on 9.«w sisxid- Ix J-asdrcstaq
- .ssassn^xw 9\s eiev
.t.s'>i^iI.Rup9 ,£!£ .Ill L'sl .enxIifeA .v .oO .fl .H
9ri ner csJb erf+ w.se noetsq ifn^ asriJsriw
aj-i? .- ^ •- - .aaimf).? ei a*x sonsfclve srf*
ST ; s'^^T'Twe e' dnsasiq ni-sg^ ussd 9tf£xl o* *on
'i ftcf^d tve s^exlw ^aavewori «89»*«) XjB^evee
^se a£W fcsa -9oeb -'^^i/oritf- ^JiisAeqmoo
■ sojsI'- -.i: Las bQlLti
■ ^rro rro tixv- sooi ,es .III S*'! tiifoiwoH .
TSrffO 9rft . -. ol Tifli OlXlfil iOjElJ QlOUOfc
Yltrro'fs ytsv Te"f>rrp: . rriere-'t nn-trrs+s nssa a^w bnjs 3i0JSi*
wjse Terrrr ;- 'i teLIi-i, la^ J^oi'ife tan Ledcra lo 9*£i dgiri js.^£
. rrr-pffs ' roXlq adt t^.o XIoi Y;fcod alri
. i)9Q««seoq fcnjo aijoxite0tnx ,T9aoa
T08I1W . . .yH -A ii .0 nl .d-neteq
irjsnigne 9di" ,y^ neaa
■^t.-ton fBdt tX^ri sjsw ;tx
Sonet i' raJarrinc.'. xd^f Xu^ei^o
xi grrexf Jbatd-iraL^s ^Xaaqoaq noecf
'-'''■' ::9 0* xtolcfom 9x1* fceJnjsag 9v^if ioa
uodityn ^eoxisLivs sxl* IX£ to eeoXo
ncj't; -J-aajjp sffJ 3/1 .n.siB9TJt^ 9xl;f lo
fcsixjjpsx ajBW tiuoo Qdt rfoXxIw j-oisl lo
iju^tla j8 xfo&e 8£w ei©ilt cfisxld" ©fcuXo
yjsffl it^oet^fJ^B &Bdt no esxtx/t; owj- to toltrav axlj- Jfixli- oa n^msail edt lo
no'.v be listBiibed by us.
The court refuse! instructions Nos. 31, 33, 33, 34 and 35,
requested by defendant. The 31st was that there was no stattte in
force requiring defendant to ring a bell or blow a whistle for the
crossing in question.. We think it might very well have been given
in view of the 5th instruction given for plaintiff that the violation
of any sti.tute designed for the protection and safety of the public
is negligence per se, if it is the proxiirate cause of an injury; but
there was nothing in plee lings or proof or in instructions p-iven for
rl£>intiff to indicate that plaintiff claimed that a st?vtute required
defendant to ring a bell or blow a whistle at that farm crossing, and
therefore it seems to have been naneceseary to give this. Pesides,
plaintiff was claiming that the common l»w and the surroundings at
the crossing did require defendant to give signals. The jury aight
not have understood the difference between common law and s-^-atute and
might hf-ve interpreted this as an instruction that there was no law
requiring defendant to give siggals at that place/ It was net error
tp refuse it. The 32nd instruction wj; a sufficiently ooverel by 't: ven
inatudtions. The same is true o"^ ths 33rd and 34th, anl also of the
3?th, except that it undertook to tell the jury tbe purpose of the
law requiring a head light to be maintained :..nd this was no"^ a matter
upon 'vhich it was neceR-ary to instnuot the jury*
Oompaint is made of instructions given for plaintiff. No. 3
tcld the jury that they were at liberty to disregard the testimony of
any witness who had knowingly ani wilfully sworn falsely in a matter
material to the issue, except so far ?.3 corroborated, etc. It is
claimed by defendant that there jvae no witness to whom It could apply.
We are of opinion it was a proper insturction under the eviience in
this record. The criticism u;on plaintiff's other instructions, ex-
cept Nos. 1 and 8, do not require further discussion. No. 1, besldee
other matter, told the jury that if plaintiff's Intestate w-; e in the
-8-
.Bsj '{rf bsdaatBtt scf von
♦ -'■-*■" - ■■ 1
nl 9irtjL\. .... falS eriT .*n^iTa^fi>i; Yd" t&tssupQz
arit lOl sXJaldv. ^flli ot tasbas^Qb "gatzlispot soaol
nevig iTBQd ©v^r." ^ xnixl* sW .aot&eQUp ni gnlaaoio
noi:t'.?Ioiv s^![:^ tfirfi" .. - -^ aol&Quiifsal dtS 9d& lo wslv ni
oildi/q 9rft ^0 ytst^e - ..- ...,_,; l ~^r..'r-i ^,rfrr toI isengiasJb acJ-i/t^ts y^-S "to
tx/cJ jTTUCfii ne "to 98i/£0 st^mlxo'..., — - ._ .- ..: ,»8 i^q sonagilgen el
Tot nftvi-o exioi^oun+arri fll to toorrq lo s§ni£)99lq al grrMJon e£w aiadt
^'^-40p91 otxr:f.s*8 jb j-.srft\b»mJt£lo l^tiitnijslq *jsrf* e&spttat o* ^^ijJ-fllilq
- .; . ,gn.c?eoao HTp**- *8rf# f^ el+afrfw £ Trolrf to Ilacf « gnlT o^ faBba&^ab
^aeJbxeg'I .eirfJ =^v'-t r.-f ^^^ ^-?>-:)rtrrtT .f = -rf 3V£ri o& atfl'^--" -^ 8T0l9T&rf;t
+ ' '-"ntbnuofWB ... - -■' ■or'irBi^.,.. — . IliJaiaXq
_,, ^+Lf-" ■••= ;,;... , — :. :. .,..._.. :,„..,_.__ ... _ : .:faTSl5flti/ 9V*xf ^on
wii- >.. ...v STsrf* ■'^prrf -;r> r +r c.-t •f■^^i QJB 6^ Bidf £)a*0TqT9*nx sVjjri Jrfgim
toT''= +'i.-r rr :r +T "='I..^B[gia avlg ot ta^i ■■^^'^■^^i ynlrtupei
nsv .:^ltoiiriQai XsmSS ©rf' .. oeulOT q*
arfr^ . :^ _. - H".+ T-o sut* si em^e srfT .snox^fcotenx
?*.'^-' " ^. •'■-■- ^d^ XifJl. - - ot iood-TaJbnw *i v*.rf(;? tqeoxs ,rf*3S
Ts*-? ■ r- - rafti^^niBm ad od- *rfgil fcf^arf .^. -jntitupsi msL
- ■'* d-oi/trtani o:f x'^^^-^^osa a.;v. Ji rio ir'/- fic^ir
f.+oiJT*Bnl "io ©tjsatf Bx taifiqisoC
sdiX .+£ &T?7? Y9rf* .i«if;t v:TiJ{; 9£f:f tlc:f
'^' Ifljs \fIsni'.'von3r i:\sri oriw aasnJlw \a£
08 rf-q90X9 ,«ueal ecit o* rjBlTa^fjsffi
i-^fvv r,f p. r.' eisiit tsdt insbaalieb ^d l&mlelo
.._ .taqoTq B 6sn tl aolsitqo I'b-axe sW
' : :'lq troc'u waxofrf-iTO 9ffT .bioosr' Btdt
a-:tl u" eirupsT ton ob ,8 ta^ I .aoK j-qac
■'t vxui; erf* i:Xo:f tio&*-jim laricf-o
exercise of orilinary care anl oaution for his own safety and if the
j\iry believed from the evidence that his death was proximatedly
caused by the negligence of the defendant, the jury should find the
defendant guiltyo» To make this a perfect instruction it should have
submitted to the jury also the question whether defendant was neg-
ligent in the respects charged in the declaration, specifying them.
The 8th insturction contains the same defect or omission. These in-
stnuctions lid not directly assume that defendant was negligent. The
jury could not find that the negligence of defendc.nt caused ^he in-
jury without first finding that defendant was negligent. In Taylor
V. Felsing, 164 111. 331, tne 4th instruction given for plaintiff
began as an abstract proposition of law and then said th?t if in
such case an injury resulted to the servant from the defects specified
in the abstract pripoBition while plaintiff was in the exercise of
ordinary care for his safety "from the negligence of his employers in
manner and form as charged, " then the servant could recover . It was
not distinctly left to the jury to decide whether the employer was
negligent in manner and form as charged. The form of the instruction
T' s not approved but it was held not reversible error. In the present
case instruction No. 16, given at the request of defendant, told the
jury that before they would be warranted in finding the plaintiff
sertain things must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, one
of which was "that the defendant was guilHy of negligence th?.t was
the proximate cause of the injury" so that the jury were informeil that
to authorize a recovery negligence of the defendant muB+ be proved and
that siid nfgligenoe w-as the proximate cause of the injury. Said in-s
structions 1 c.nd 8 o\ight also to h ve told the jury for what acts of
negligence recovery could be had, restircting them to those charged
in the decl-.ration, but defendant's instruction on the subject w?.s
in equally gtneral terms, and there was no proof tending to show any
other negligence th: n the matters we have referred to, and we are of
opinion that there was no evidence which could have led the jury to
-9-
3d* \i ta£ ^ie't^e awo sirf ':cot noifuso trtjs 9i£0 Y'l^Q-t^io "^o saloiaxs
YlJb9t5iBxxoiq 9JEW ni-sQb Bid &s.::i sonafciva ©rft mon^ ijsvsilsd Yx^i;
erft fcnil tliforfa yiwr 3a';t , tii.3i>no!;9i) srft ^o sonsgilgaxx 9il;t- yd fceai/ao
av^xf bXvode it ^oxd•oi)x:^&flJ: j-oslaaq jb aXd^ sal^m oT ^icj-liug ^aabaQ^et
.««xi* jjnJiif'iiosQ'e ^aoi^eiJBloei) ad* fli ijagiiido ed-odqeei sxit al ias-gil
-al seed? -noxaeimo ic joe\et- ©miae ddcf eflx.sd'aoo noiJoxi/tsiix dtQ adT
exlT .iJaesiXgefl a£W i-a^ae'iet isd& aaursais Y-Cii"osiJti3 *oii til aaoiiouatB
-fli erit £)esx;?o +a^i)csi3b lo aoiissxlgsn ©£f;t cf^dd- tail i-oa tluoo \isJi,
zolveT nl .^-nagilssn a-w cfn^bxialab d-isriJ- gniLnil teiil fuodtlx: y.'tiJt
lljttxii^-siq To!^ navi§ noi*ouid-enJi il*l^ sr.t »!££ .1X1 i'SI ^snieXa"^ ♦v
al tt tsdt tisa aed& bas w«I ^o noi^xeoqoiq iorjiieda a^ an ii^sgad
fceiTiloaqa eios^'-Bt ad* moil tn£Vrds sdt o* ijad-Iweai x'wi,ai nj^ asso riox/a
lo aaiciexe sd* at bjbw "^Ix+ai^Xq aXlrfw aoxd-iaoqliq i-o:3iJ-ad^ ad* nl
ai eTSYoXqfiia sxd ^o eoflssiXgau Bdt xoxV yJ©1js8 aid ^ol; qi&o \,z^aitro
Bjsw .tl . i3V0cei bluoo ^xiisviea ed* nad* " ,i)asi-^dc bj: mio j: £a£ lannsai
ei-''7 Ts^olqma adJ aeri^adw sbloab o& xtul ad* ol izBL YX*oai*Bit *on
nox*Oi;i-^axxi ad* ^o miol adT .bagijsdo 8£ atol ta& isaa^Si. at JnagiXgan
*aaaa*iq eri* al .to-ria aXdiaasvai *on isXad ajsw *i *xjd tsvoiqq^ *oa ear
ad* tXo* ^ia,'ibae'i6b xo iassjpB'z sd* *£ navig ,3X .oW floi*oi;i*ani: aa^o
^ll*fli.6Xq ad* gaifcnil aX X)9*aaiX£w ©d IjXjuow ijad* 9iol;acf *£d* 'iXisi,
9no ,eoa9f:Jtva eif?- *:o 3oa£iaX)noqaTq x: ^d Levoiq sd *8x;ra agnxd* niB*T88
aoxragxXsan xo Y^-^i-i^ sjsw jn^aaiafc ad* *jsd*'' a^w doidw 1o
*ed* ij5mTo1:fli aasv viwj; ad* *J8d* oa "xiulat ad* lo aex;^o a*3iHXxoiq Qdt
has- bsvQiq ad *ai/m *ff^aal8Jc sdt 1o aonagiXsan ^c'^QVooai s asXiod*jj£ o*
^-nl ti.38 .-fix/tai ad* ^o saitao •*?*°rxxo'rq ©d* es-w eortagiXsgn i)iia *jBd*
lo ato^ *j8dw lo'i Y^"/^ ad* bl: o* 03X£ Jriguo 8 Ln-s X enoi*oxjT*8
lia^T^rio saod* o* mad* 3ni*orri:*eaa ,t,sd ad iXwoo yi^voosi eonagxXgan
8.3W *oa!;d0a ad* no noi:*oi/i*enx e '*a£f:>a93:at *i;d ,noX*i3ii;XoeX ad* at
xas wode o* :5aXJbn6.+ Uooiq orr o«w aiad* ^xie ,8rna9* X^aaaelB ^XXsx/pe nX
"Jo a':.^. aw fcaos ,o* taits' •. sv; BTa**j6in ad* a^d* aonegXXgan iad*o
03 x'^i sd* ^Q-*^ av£;d XxJLfoo doXdw aoaativa on bjsw aiad* *£d* noinlqo
firld defendant guilty of any other negligence.
It is i-rgued th-it the dania.ges are eMcensive. The proof
is thc.t Petro was 5C years old at the time of his leat'^ and
thr.t he made about ^3,000 per year at farming, which had al-
ways been his business. There was no proof tc the contr^cy.
We cannot say that his future life would not have bsen worth
to hia family the amount of the judgment.
It is contended that the declaration doe? not sta-^e a
cause of action because it only alleges due care when dec-
eased wag on the railroad track ani not as he approached it.
Defendant dii not demur to the declaration and did not move
in arrest of judgment and we are of opinion that the sviff-
iciency of the declaration is not presented for our consid-
eration. But, if it had been so raised, the allegations are
not as supposed. The term "farm crosing" as used in the de-
claration, means the entire passageway from the gate in the
west fence to the g..te in t".:e e' st fence, and it is that
croBsing and not merely the s^ace between the rails of the
west track which the declaration avers that he was walking upon
in the exercise of due care for his own s?.fety, that is, as he
was approaching the railroad tracks.
The case is a close one because of the evidence o" the fire-
man, but we are of the opinion that after two verdicts foe
plaintiff the record ioes not require us to submit the case to
another jury.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.
-10-
tooiq 5 .iareoxs stjb 38^J3Hi.3h arit ;t-3£f* bsirgi^ ai 71
tn£ :jset sid to ernx.t 3:i.t :fj6 LIo eijgsy 03 a*=w 01^9*? &sd& at
"£& bi-d rioxriw .gnJtairrs^ 1'^ 1,69^ Tsq 000, Sj &sJocf£ dissor sri tsrf*
.ifa^T+iToo srfrf' 0+ 'iooiq on asw s^sdT .aeeni^-af siri nsscf a^-'s^
rftio-^' rr^ar; er ff 'on fcli/ow sill sisjfuJ *lrf *rx-f.+ Y-sa ionajzo sW
.Jaamgri/Q srfi' "io itni/onus srft ^X-?""^ el.-l o;f
£ 3&~fs tea 530I) xroJtteiBlosfc 9d& i::d& bsbas^tico st &l
-csi: nsrfw st.cc eirfc segslli! i{Ino #1 oeiusosd xiotto^ 1:o saw.so
..+1 isifofiOTCTa^ eri 2£ *Qa tct^ -Acaif bnorllsi 9ri* rto S3W i39a.?9
avorr: .ton tit bas aottsislosb sdi ojf iwrnaJL- &on Lib tajsfcns'iea
-3tliia erfjj' &£idf nolatqo ^o 9t£ ew bns .tnarnghuQ "io i-a^eiTJs nx
-btsaoo mq tol baiasRSiq ioa si ao£.&sT.n£o9b sdt "lO rfonslol
5i£ snoiJ^geXIis erft ^fcaelji-i os nascf l:.Bff c t 1:1 ,*xjS .noiJ-sis
-sJb ecft ni basjj aa "gni^eoic mtci^l:" mis* exlT .fcaeoqai/s ajj tfon
srfcf ni 9J"'£S ®^'* ■'^ottl Y-"W9S£e5>sq STxtrra 9r:# snjrsm ^aoi&3t3£o
i-jBffj- si rf-i bae .sonsl ta^s srlJ nx 9&i'g arfcf o* sone'i tes^r
sdi lo bLI^i edi a99^.vd-ecf scjscra srf* ^Istem ton ba^ "gaisaoto
aocM 3xil>fl£w asw sri iMt 8T9V5 nolt^iJoXoafc srl* xlolrfw Ho^tsit t89w
9xf sjb ,sx tBdt ^\te1.36 nwo sirf to^ sijbo ex/i* iO eaxoisxa srld- cii
,aioBii^ bsoillsi erft grrlifo.oiqq^ aiw
• 9t1^ sxft 5o 9ons£-xv9 Bd& ^o sai/^osd eno eaolc ^ si ease sriT
(sail 8*oii>^»v ovt totlz ^£d^ aoxnlqo 3ri.t lo 0T/5 9w tud ,nj3m
o* 98iio 9d& ttrnduB c+ su eili/psi ton aaol: i^Tooai srf* Ultnij^Xq
.^iwr T9Xf*onJ3
.i>9fCTil'l£ siolQisdt at ;tn9m§i;u(; srfT
-OX-
STATE OF ILLINOIS, )
SECOND DISTRICT. |" ^^' I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court.
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
"^^Jf
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October,
in the year of our- Lord one thousand nine hun/red and
twenty, within and for the Second District ft the State of
111 ino i s :
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres id irj|| Jus t i ce
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Jus t i
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Just
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk.
CURt\^. AYERS, Sheriffs
2191.A- 635
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit :
Gen. No. 6903
Orin 0. Cgle, et c.l. ,
Appellanta^
V8 Appele from Henderson^
Chrrles H. Ditto,
Appellee •
2191.A.635
Dibeil, P. J.
Orin 0. Ogle b.nl Tom Ikney sued Charles H. Ditto to recover
coMi-'niasiona for bringinp; hire a buyer for his farm. The declaration con-
siatei of taree special counts and the comrr!cn count?. Defendant pleaded
the genere.l issue. At the close of plaintiff^ 8 proofs the court dir-
ected a verdict for defendant, which tjz-.b rendered. A motion for a new
trial by plaintiffs w'..£ denied. Defendant had judgment and pl-^intiffe
appeal. The verdic" entitled defendant to a judgment in bar, but such
judgment was no"^ rendered. Tovm of Magnolia v. Kays, 300 111. App, 133,
If the point had Ijeen rb-is-jd by counsel, it would h^ve been oxrr duty
to return the record to the court below for a proper judgment.
In iuly, 1319, plaintiffs were in partnership as real estate
agents and defendat had a farm v;hioh he wished to sell. He had asked
I'SOCCC per ;-cre but ^e entered into an arrangement with plc.intiffs on
July 14 that if they would bring him a buyer for the farm at #190.00
per acre, which they figured would amount to fSl, 160.00, he would give
therf: the $1,16C.C0, and he would give them thirty days in which to do
"ihis. They enters! into negotiations -.vith Torr: 0*M&lley and his father,
Hugh O'Mi-lley, by which Hugh O'Malley agreed -^o buy the pro-^erty at that
rico/ It ;y, f. arranged between all aparties that O'Malley should give
■ note or check for a certain sxim and the balance in crsh on ths first
of Msrch following. O'Malley made and signed such a note and arr-?nged
with a local bank that it would cash the note for defendant at any
, .1^ *s ,9X30 .C ninO
,ottia .H ssXxerfO
.99Xi9qqA
.L .^ ,XX9dia
TSVOCS1 ct T':*-!? .^' agX-Ti^ffr: qo^Sl moT i)ni3 eXgO .0 nxiC
-noo acitaT£Xc!9fc srfT .mt^l sM loi rts^i^cf j3 iiiM anignirrcf lol BaoiBalsmoc
fcsfc^eXq faetas^teG .i&msoo noiimc ;£ atnuoo Xjsiosqa 9»T(it lo leJ-eie
-Tifc tTuoo sff^ etooiq a^'ilitatal ■ -.jisnag axlj
•:v2n .^: -rot rro'-'ct: . ioldv ,tn>abn9^9i) 10^ toifciav .z £9*09
a'^lJttniBlq fcnB itnsaigtjJt fcrcdleQ .isXn 3'i■:'2:^aJ:iiXq yd X^ii^
rfouB. *wd ,T£cf ai tn9m:?f;0(; . Lcs^-si; h<itc^ &ottiQV BiiT! .XjsaqqjB
,%.-. . lA .1X1 OOS .bybX .V lo nwoT .iaisfcasi .*on 8£W d^ngrngti/j,
yti/Jc TX/o ansd 3^'-:^ fclwow ti .Xs^ ^tst aeod b£d iatoq 8d& II
.tnem^tjjj; i? toI woXgd" 1-icuoc sad" orf- bToosrr edt aiij&ei ot
9*j6.t83 lB9i eB ql- .^'ni^Xq «GX9X ,^Xjjt al
bsiss biitl 9H .XX98 of to:' sd J^fcnglgt tn^s aia^-ga
ao sf^ttni ilq dilvi - - teie:fne 9:f tud eio.; loq OO.OOS'^
OO.OGX* t aol iBXi^ ■ I.UOW ^9il:f li :f^J- *X ^Xi;L
avl^ tX^'cw 9£f ,00.09X»XSt o& ^nsjosris LXaow Jbsxugll x^dt iloixfw ,910-2 T9q
,T9rf*j='^ sirf l)XT£ ^eXIsM^O moT di' 'ilfozsn c *ni ieiatng ^exfT .si:.
Jjsrit *JB v*n9qo-rq 5d& ^wd - :'i'C rf3uH doMv 'ftf .yaXX^M'O rlgu
evig blsjoda ^fsXX^M'C nasw,t9<i fcega^iis q.-sw tl XooXa
^ati^ ©xff no dB.fio al ©onjsX^sd 9. -tie nls^tBo -: toI: sfoerfo 10 eioa ..
fc9Snf>i« ^-c^ »*c« £ dofSB tsa-glB ta£ sb£ffi xBllsM^O .gniwoXXo^ xIot^M 'io
vits :^s tci^bae^Bb iol 9r£on grit deso blvo^ *i c^^rf* ^lo^d Xi=ooX £ rfjiw
time he wanted the money, and defendant was notified of that arrange-
ment. O'Malley arranged with the bank for the c^-sh to pay for the
land on Maroh first. The proof was explioit that O'Malley was ready,
able and willing tc pay for the farm at the time named. After def-
endant had [jiven plaintiffs authority to bring hiir; a buyer for the
land on the terraa named an J h. i agreed what their coripensation should
be and had agreed they should have thirty dayg within -vhich to find
such buyer and hai agreed that during that thirty days he would not
sell the lani himself, hs toll them that he wanted the contract ani the
deed to contain a provision to permit him to hunt upon the ladn.
Plaintiffs told hini that it probably could not be sold with that pro-
vision, and he told thesj in effect that he v^ould not insist upon it
if it would prevent a ssle. IVhen this was maie knovvn to 0'MalL.ey a-^ter
he had agreed to buy the property on the terms previously named, he
said to defendant that defendant was welcome to hunt on his land and he
would give defeniatn a 'Txitten permit to dc so, but he could not allow
that tc go into the oontrcct or deed, for thot would create a cloud upon
the land. The agents had a contract prepared and signed by O'Malley
which did not contain the hunting privilege, and it was left at the
bank for defendant's sign:; tare . Defendant caused an o-^ficer of another a
bank to prepare another contract with that provision in it, which def-
endi.nt executed and left at that bank for OtMalley's signature. It is
said tho.t there was some slight defect in the description in the first
contract, but wh-.t it was dees not appear. OtMalley went tc look at the
land again and di i no^*^ ge'. cake in time to go to the second bank that
day. The next morning defendant telephoned that as O'Malley did not
sign the contract hy eight o'clock of the preceding evening, the deal
was o-^f and hs rruat have $300.00 per acre for his land. This suit
f ollowid.
What plrintiffg were authorized tc sell wag the entire land.
The right which defendant afterwards proposed to reserve in the contract
-3-
erf* io1 ■
tfort M0OW
Qdj- f n^? oo^^iv -IOC
.!xt.&£ 5dt no Of/ *nxfrf c
-orq ji:ri.+ ntiw :
:fx nocTi; rf-eieiii ;fon fcluov
19*^5 YellBM'O 0.+ rnvofia Ji^,r :"
Sri LflJB fciijsl a.
voLLb ton blii :
-Ist rioix::
9i .11 .3":x/:t-jefrBxs efysl. '
Q.rii :!. ,: iocX o.i
loa tlL v£l.!
:^i!' .
X-ei
flue
Biri :tc
.Lc-
.:ia8 0.1
rijeid-ffco
rf3-iw iiegnaa-cjs yell-sM'O .j-nera
.oTq »ffT .+eTll rloiiJM no tasL
..aiLilvi ,j)bxijs _<»l,d£,
■^amjia axaxaJ sxicf' no bajsl
L'lisods ^cedt Lseigjb i)arf Lnn ecf
•fc ;fj3rlcf Jb99i3£ tjid haj^ ^Q\M9 doi/a
loj- 3ri tiXsaiaiil tasl adt XXsa
crrieq o^ noiaivoiq -s nijizfnoo ot t99t
;i;t ffixri cXo* allitatsl^
o9ll9 at taadt bloj- ed ba£. \aolBtv
ri.+ naifP .!?I'^9 .3 *n9V9T'7 t£uow d-i 11
fcn9'!-9fc -^fcnglrei: o* ti.£e
+ f ftp^st 9Vis tXxjow
: og 0^ tadi
TXiosiq *c-c=atnoo s t£d B*rt93J0 orfT .JbnxX 9il*
^nitrruri sdt nipfaoc foa fcxL rfoiriw
. xL.j-r'n^xe 8•t^i5^a8l9£l lol ainjecf
:-ti5q9Tq o* injsd
aJtXe 9mx)« 8.<:w ortfeflJ c^.orii• Li£s
^IIbM)^0 .ij39qq£ ion aeob a£W *! f^^rfW fud jtoJiTitnoo
*on Mh tfl£ nljsgii' biusX
i-n^sfciia^efc Snlmonr *xeft Bitt .yist
' *flsi9 yrf tojBTitnoo grii" xigle
isq OO.OCSl evM t^i/m 9H" tCUB 1*40 'b^tt
.tiwoXXol
'l^ltirlJSXq *£XfW
and dcel, to hunt upon the premises during his life would Yisve eat-
abliaed and ciaie of record \That i=3 known as a right of way in gross,
and it would have given him the right of access to and egrees from
this land at his will iurinf^ hie lifetime. This would have been to
ret;erv« an interest ia tte premises which would be regarded as a bur-
den thereon. Willou^hby v. Lawrence, 116 111. 11, After defendant
had authorised plaintiffs to fini him a buyer withing thirty days for
a certain price for the entire far.T, he could not change the terms
so as to reserve an er-.sement in himself for his life and thus defeat
a sale to the buyer whom they had procured, ani thereby defeat their
right to the agreed commissions. In Fox v. Ryan, 340 111. 3Si, the
rule applicable is thus st- ted; "Where a brtfraer ia employed to sell
property by the ovmsr, if he produces a purch'ser wi-^hin the time
limited by his authority who iz ready, willing an.i able to purchase
the property upon the terms proposd by the seller, he is entitled to
his commissions, even though the seller refuses to perfor.-n the contract
on his part." To the I'ke effect is Oliver v. Sattler, 333 111. P38.
We do net think it ought ■'•o be hell, unier the facts in this case, that
a written contr- ct must be signed by both parties before the Viroker
has becoKe enti^:led to his comirissions where, as here, the broker
prepared a contract ani the buyer signed it and left it where the seller
could sign it, but the seller r6fu-:ed to do so and reo.uired the inser-
tion therein o" the reserv-^.tior. of an easement not embodied in his or-
iginal ccntrE-ct with the brokers. The thrity days had not expried.
The agents had done all they could to h:^ve the seller sign the contract
which they h?. d prepared, which conformed with the terms of their em-
pl03rment and which the buyer has signed. The failure o'!' the seller to
sign was his own fault, ani indeed, it may well b'^ that the contract
which the buyer did sign was binding upon hia-i and could have been en-
forced by the seller withou-^ his signature thereto. Ames v. Moir,
130 111. 582j Memory v. ITeiport, 131 111. 633; Forthman v. Deters, 306
-3-
-TL'c - .^o . :^^ ..V 898 Iks .; . .. -.; ta9tsfat n^ svisasi
!fn5iifl& ox, .^ ... .-i .1X1 3X1 ,90£t9TW£j .V Ydrf^jjoIXiT^ .nosaariJ rret
emi3t •^^■'*- -• at;rfry :fo.- ^. ..... ..J ». .,- ^. .:;..>. 3ri# ro^ sotiq alstr^o "£
■^-reJab .... -.i,3 9^1X alri t:o^ tXeemlrf at ^aemea<=-9 fiJ3 evieasi ot e^' np
ii=vr::r d-£s^9f5 Ycfs^srf^ ^^■^ ^t°^ruoo^:q t.zd ^grf* morfw ig-^ucf erf* ot eXse .,
sf^d- »iec .1X1 Ol-S ^aB^H .V xol nl .anoleaim^r- ^op-r^£ g^f^ {jrf- trfgii
IIsB ot bexoLqme si ifSiBn'id js gterfW" {Let.'-.&B c- .. ,. _ sXcfJSoJtXqq^ gXiri
Qmit sriv r'"-'"- fw 'Tcic-rroxuq a sBouboiq ed. "ii ,i9m70 '^-■■■»' '^cT Y^tgqoTq
*•- -" f- „,_ ,;''fT-r .yrb^et st orfw yiJ'ii^^^'^' fcetifiril
s.. ,:,x.^ ... ... .--. ,rj:sIX9c. .,- \..- fiEoqoiq amiet 9.: ....... vtigqoiq 9ri;t
;toj?'i.'^rroo sif.^ niTo'tsq o# 83B0^9t: i9XX9a erf* if'§x;orf+ ^ov^ .grroraa-Jtmitioo a Iff
.as" .III &£S ,a9X:^vts8 .v --- frr o •• cfo9t^9 93l:_ ... , .: ".itsq airf no
tpff^ ,9aP0 elrlt rti ©*o«& - :.- , -orf 9cf o+ fri^x/o ^i. Intd^ ton ofc sW
TSjfoiri srf* 9T0^9a' e9ltT.';-' ■*.-■ vd tsfigiR scf tai/rr. to..?lfrtoo n9t*XTW ,8
igioicf 9rf:^ ,9'i9ri e^ - -.ijiaaitifnoo sirf o* beitt'tae amobad aJBri
*i9Xl9a r " ^' ■' 'i ■!'^. r cgrcgxa -rs^x/d sri* Ins *SJ3tt/ioo 's i9Tnq9Tq
-TSBnJ: _ ot bsBuJei TdXXaa sdf tu(S «J1 ff^-ta £Ijjoo
-TO ai:i r.i fcglfco--- .-.- tassisase n& "io rT0i*.?VT989'i &df to nl9T9rft nol*
.£iSjtTqx9 Jofi t^rf a^jafc TjJii:.'-f ^x-f^ . ;vi9::ot(j' o.n't d.tiw to-3T:fxioo X^ni^i
■topi^fnoo sn:" n-Ja 'i- 'Iss e:! .. -?noJi) t-srf atn93£ 9rfT
-m9 fl-: ;oli.'ir!' «fc9i^qe'iq fc.-rf Y^rf* rloirfw
0* TSJ" .f:e::n2s 5.^.'' i^viitf 9ri:^ rfolrfw fcn^ tnsmYOlq
•to..i-trr: ; ,tXjjj^ cpwo eirf a^w-flgla
Qnii)nicJ esw agla ttb Tavx/d 9xfJ rfolilw
^ . ._ -+.^n;nia aid .^irorftiw laXXsa sAi ^d b^otot
,-:,n,- .To-f.r .V 't-mf- .-. IcI ^tToqigT! .V YionaM iS82 .XII 0£I
111. 159; Miers v/ Chi.s. H. Fuller Cc, 167 Ii: . App. 49j Lowber
V. Connit, 36 Wis. 17r; Dupuis v. Kipnic, 111. App. Defendant
hs-.B Ro right to t-ike this l-rd out o"" t>'e hvnle of the pl-.intiffs
iurinp the ghirty ii-vs. The evidence cre-.tes the impresf-ion th^t
defendant insiBted on thip huntinp; reservation in order to prevent
a sale o;' t":e property at $19C.C0 per r.cre. App^irently v7hen he found
thp-t $190' per acre could be obtained, he decided th-.t he would
abv.n Jon th-it oropcsition Find hharee $20C.OO per ^ore. ^e c..re of
opinion the court should not h? ve directed ;:. verdict for defendant.
PliiintiffB insist that even if the trail court was right
in holding th^^t they could not recover under their contract, still
they should h-ive been permitted to recover under the ccmircn counts.
Perhr.ps that position n-dght be supposed to be sustained by Richardson
V. Aiken, 84 111. S31, but we regard P?.rly v. F£-rr?.r, 169 111. 606,
and Icwrence v. Rhodes, 188 111. 96, as concluaice against that pos-
ition us applied to the f'-c-'-a in this Oase.
The jud »o,eI b.r:^ "Y" edu
&ri nedw itiidt &i:insj'noo v£j.isqqA .cfii/o o* cfiwo cioxi oicu>e*avj3i^ ba^
svil YJtoo Lsjunitfioo gnlviiq eddr ertedv/ "Y" edt la&a *aioq jj bQdQ&ei
ot i&ro S8010 o& be^^LBtB YXli^eesoQfl jxI J-j;;!^ a&d;tar;l ^J-eel n&:f io
xjni- o.t Oj fljJLd lol Y^Binoteyo si-w ti; a^:- ^d-eexte sd* lo ©Jbia d-lal adi-
e.iv 3-i sixxfw jloxftud- a ' i-fialleqqjj ycf i&vq aun ini; ^found-e f>£W ed *j2>dd-
;3fijb^'-j:5 *i;odtIw i)nj5 /.eeqe lo ^c^£T eironegiiieL Jbxte ^±d ^ :^--o sninnui
,do:otQq,a e^x lo gninxsw t^ij;^
Y*iitf3 8JSW oeiieqq-^ : - uJ r'aj.IXsqqaj xcf bQbnsiaoo ex il
lo ;tiHOil ai gniviawa vXiDs^oscxsao ni soneglXgea X'^o:i^udl'L;iaQO lo
saoTO o;f Jb9*xi3?a Qd saolscf ijslllJsa* seXXaqqA ,2fox;T:;t e' tniiXXeqqi3
J8&1 OaX j-.2i.sX cfjs :rfCij'x* o&u£ 9dt^ Tk'BB baji iDJiCf JjoriooX sd d-esii+e adi"
aXgnjs asi t^ Jaetci-a sdd- ssoio ' ...sie ned* ad ;f-3d;f jiaxd biUded
atjs^s ed ;t89l aisi q& td^ie en 2 x ul ad asi'^x; tisdt iaoangal; 6:^ lo
ha^ nld bczidad j-ael 001 Jx/ocfc >Iojja:d- od-n ..ie. Jt^js afo^-'d i^siooX
j:^fl,: o-ola ledcfo ed& b&do er L&d bus esoao 0? icx^xrlrf^noo nadi" ad Juidd'
^:' ovXqwJ ;r98id-e sd* lo diuo JlaX sdi" giio i; Laiieoooiq
,>rox/iJ-6 8£w ad nadw
lo ^x q ©d* no eoxid^JtXgan x'^otudii;iaoo sstu^l&eaoo ;^;idW
a pi., intiff in ;,ny ^iven Co-se depends on the facts and oiroianstanoes
of the partioul.r oase and is ordinarily ,. question of fi.ct for the
jury, V/hen appellee locked b;.. ck the second time he kne.v, if his tes-
timony be taken as true, that the auto truck had gained fifty feet
upon him while he was going from 8 to 13 feet and while he a3.ys that
he saw th-.t he had plenty of roor.: to go over to the other side, he
should have known thaj if the relative r tes of speed were maintained
and his continued to cross at an angle of 45 degress the truck wotdd
overtake him b^^fore he .v.^s two-thirds of the way across. He is pre-
sumed to have l:nown th t it wag his duty to keep as close as possible
to the cxirb on the right to How the morr, swiftly moving vehicle
free passage on his left. He is presumed to have kno.vn that it was
the duty of the driver of the auto truck to pass on the left of an
overtaken vehicle. Under such ciroiimstances an attempt to take a
ch .nge and cross the street in front of the truck was certainly a
mistake in judgment. But estimates of distances by witnesses are
notoriously inaccurate and while ka to ., driver of a truck going
25 miles per ho\ar, 100 feet would appear a very short distance, to
w person riding a bicycle it might appear much longer. Were this
question of the exercise of judgment on the part of appellee the
only question involved we might feel constrained to say that the
of
question of contributory negligence was a question fact for the jury
and that we did not feel dls-^osed to interfere with their finding.
Appellant earnestly insists that at the time and place
of the accident appellee was violating -n ordin.-nce of the Village
of East Peoria; that such violation constituted negligence per ae.
and that such negligence is a bar to appellee's recovery in this
suit/ It does no^ necessarily follow as a matter of law that a
plaintiff cannot recover if at the time of the accident he was en-
gaged in the violation of ana ordinance, St^r Brewery Co., v. H.^uch,
323 111. 346; Johnson v. Pcil ce Livery Taxi C...b Co., xxut :^3nd Dist.
App., opinion filed June 29, 1S30. To bar . recovery on that irrcund
it must appear that the violL-tion of the ordinance wl..3 the proBim..te
c-nd effeoient cause of the inj\iry. S.B.Co. , v. Hauck, supra; Johnson v,
-5-
-33* Sid 1. , rr-.^cfifi f- loo I 9sj;.8q;q^^ AdilW .X^C
d-,iifi^ 8v-r.B 9x1 sliffw oa'i gnxo^ &-.w ad ©Xiiiw oixrf ixoqi;
9d iSbte led&o art* o& levo o; oj- -^oox 1o YJjasJlq Lojii ad ct-dJ vnea ©d
Leni^i^xii. r.i ai-iK Lseqa 1:^ .-i '^dt tl i^d^ £iVoa^ syad LJxrode
i^Xi/ow i^oiftc* Bdt aesosei . aJCsn^ n^ i^ eeoio' Qif Leiaii;J-do,o ejtd IfH^
-anq b1 qK .eaoioa x-'m ©J^* ^o Bt2i:di--ow* sjjw od saolacf aid iB^d'^cevo
elcfxaeoq a^ saolo p^; qyei[ ot x^'-~ B-t^ sjbw ii cf' dt nv,on>I ©Vjid od- Lecme.
sloldsv -^:ivoci vXt^iwa - .t v/oll. . od- Ji^xi adt ao doixo^ ed* od"
e-i-w d-i t3d& aviott^ J Ijamx/eaTc: ei eH .d-laX eld ac aa^aeiix^ f a^-
n£ lo d-lal arid- n: ce.z- ct ■iz:ji& otu.:: adi lo zsvlib odd" lo Y-^^^^ ^^^
I. e3fjsd' od" tqr.>. . Bmsjoiic doue lehaU , aloidev neaLeitasTO
jj -^Irfix-trteo Bjcv/ :{oi;i;t fcrit "^o d"noal njt *asad"e add" eoo:ro la.. age do
?■: ■ eeeBorr&vy ':<f ?oofii-t. •.■ci:^^3raxd"es tuQ .tadBX^Uj'- ai Qi^tBttn.
od" ad eXldw Jbnos ej-jBOi/ocj.ax xXajJOiaoJon
od" ^soa^iBtt tiodB yasv ^ T;:3©qqja i;X:/ow d-aol OOX ^luod zsq eeXJtia ^£
alii:t aisW . ?! dcu.^ d-dgXa d"! sXoYOxd *> -^aibir £i08:taq -^
add" aaXXaqq- :iit no ;frrsia3ijir(; lo ©ejfcoiaxs add" Iq nolJeaxTp
9d;^ d-j3dd" ^-^a od" ijonx^tr^snco I-;?.'! tdsL-n aw b^vLoval nold-aoi/p yXxxc
to
Y^trt ©^* lo'i itofi'i noid-eetfi. oone-j^iXgan •"^aod"xro''iid"noo lo nold"a©i;p
.snliifixl xtsdd" d^lw ai:©3:'x©d"iii od" iaaoqeiJb Xeal Joa bib ev; Jjsdd" irn^
©o.-iq ba£ emit adsf d"i5 d";:rfd" B&^s.Bni YXd'aanij;^^ Ja^XIeqqA
e;VJlXJtY edit lo acc-ni. . _ .:2v Biivi aaXXaqqo^ ta&blooji edt lo
ea tcacr aone-^^iXgec tad"0d"id-sxToc; rroi*..Xoiv dox/e d-Jbdi- ;^Ixoa^ J:,SJua,lo
plrid" n.t x'^-^^"^^'^'^ e'eeXXe-r si oonaj^iXsen dcx;e i^di Lns
3 008X1 'on aeoL d"! \d^Xij"a
-ne B£-w ad d-nsLi ooju axld"^ lo effli:t ed:: . :isvooaa d"onrr.ao llXd"nijjXq
id- ,.oO Y'oi'O^^ .^4»^8 .aorxflaliao flKx^. lo noxtiiXoxv add" ni ijagjsg
.+ei sjsx ,.oO cfiiO ^x-oT xisvlJ ac Is<I „v noEfldoL iB^Z. .Ill SSS
^'' -^d" no 'Cisvope^ - V^cf oT .OESX ^22 axu/X, L&Xil npinlqo t.qqA
ad". :..;jiO'^ ■ v; sonjcnlLio sdd" lo noxd".:Xoiv edt &sdt xseqqis d"ax;in d"x
.V xxoar^ncL ;.Qiqre ^^foixijE .v ^.oC.Sl.e .-cwlai cdcT lo aai;^o cfnsioalla in-
P.L,& T.C.Co., supra; Lathan v.C.C.G.C.a: St, L, Ry. Co., 179 111,
App. 384; L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., v. P. rker, 131 111, 557,
In thii3 case there is no question that at the time of
the aooident appellee was violating an ordi-noe of the. Villar;e of
East Peoria and so was guilty cf negll;],enoe per se . Gr.a5ill v,
Bl.i.ck, App. Ct, 2nd Dist,, opinion filed June 39, 1930.
The vital question in the case ia was s'moh negligence
the proximate cause of the injiiry. An r.ot to be tho proximate cauae
a
Of the injury muat be^ cause vrhioh produces the injury, but it need
not be the sole couae nor the last or neareat cuuse. It ia the pro-
ximate cause if it concur a with some other cause acting at the same
time, which, in combination with it, causes the injury. For a full
citation of the authorities on this question see Kanter v. St. L. S.
& P. Ry., opinion filed April 31, 1930.
Appellee's crossing the street in violation of the ordin-
ance under, the circumstances of this case was one of the causes with-
out which the accident could not have occurred at the time and place
held
in question and under the authorities cited must therefor be ixiii to
be the proximate cause of the accident and must therefor bar a rec-
overy in this case. The judgemnt is therefor reversed,
FINDING OF FACTS.
We find that at the time of the accident appellee was
violating an ordiance of the vill.^ge of East Peoria, Illinois, cund
th^t such violation wa ; the proxiamte cause of the injiiry and that
appellee -.vas guilty of negligence, which contributed to cause the
injiiry.
.Ill 3VI
lo t:
J&eefi i-
-oaq QdS
Ilifl .. aoi
.a .:" .
■ ^ , -Ttfe ,.oO.O,T £.J.
... .8 .J ^^8^: ,qc
leqqij tanLloDS^ ar
^..111 noinlqo ».*ElCr LrrS .*0 .qqA ,3ft)£j
.0 ©ift ni r:oi.+ ' ' -*iv orfT
::r oG c: . ■ rid- ^10 oou^o ©J-iflilxoaq si
-H
, . ;.f^c jaoa-ion '^o .Jcj^ X edt lOfi oeuao eXoa exlJ ecf *c
^ow*; eei/xjo isdJo siaoe dtlv Btaoaov *1 ^1 qbubo s*£iHJ
:ijj-i.nl exl* asaJu-30 ^Si dilv nolt^nicfeioo ni ,nclilw ,8raj
+ai3S ©68 nold-eatrp ticfj- no eettliod&UJi eri^t "lo noliJ-iJ^J
.OSSX ,XS XJti:qA JbeXll: noinlqo ».yH .^
-£ix£)::o ed* lo noxtJsXoiv ni *e©^ct-e ©xlrf" gnleeoio e'eeXIeaqA
-rltivv eeaiTj^c srfJ 1:o ^ao erv oc esoitiitBCurotric sfl* .nebnsj eof
w sv ii ^on i)l0oo tnet'lccjtj erfd- xfolxiw Jjl
ciu baji not&BQUp r
jiisLiooA, s£ij iu esi/joo 8*.offllxorrq ari^f ;
I* b1 dTtrasgijj'Q orfT .se.eo sidrf- nl yie-y
■dt hall s't7
' -io n.i gniJiiXoJ
"DXi'JbXOXV dOUB iBC
icXii.. ^.-^oiia^iX^en iu if^Hqg e>;« ssXIeqc
•Y^tx/tr
au..Ia Ln£ sail J sil;)-
o.t ktzt
-Cf:'S:
.^TOAl iO
;^:-
i*xi-3 j^icaxljll ,^X1C&
STATE OF ILLINOIS, (
SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^- I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
(^'H M
u^ /t^r-/
V
y
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
iegun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hu^ared and
twenty, within and for the Second District/of the State of
111 ino i s :
Present--The Hon, DO^RANCE DIBELL, Presiding- Justice.
' i
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justitfe
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justi/e.
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk
CURT S. AYERS, Sher
U/ 219 I.A. 63 6
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
I
Gen. No. 6811
Ella ueterson,
Appellee,
V8. Appeal from Peoria
Peoria Rc-ilw-r.y CoT.peny,
Appellant.
219I.A- 636
Heard, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment for t7,500,
which appellee recovered against appellant in the circuit court
of Peoria County in a suit for personal injuries alleged to have
been sustained by appellee while in the act of alighting from one
of appellant's street cars u-pon which she was a passenger.
It is claimed by appellant th t the evidence does not sus-
tain any of the allegations of negligence contained in the leclsr-
ations. The ieolarTttion consis+ed of four countp. In the first
coiint the negligence allege! is that while appellee, a passenger
on appellant's street ccr, with due care ani caution for her own
safety, was attempting to leave the car which hai stor^ped at the
corner of Adarr.s and Walnut Street B.t the usual place for discharg-
ing of passengers, appellant, by its servants, so carelessly, neg-
ligently and recklessly drove ?.nd managed the car that by and
through the negligence, mismanagement and unskillfulness of appell-
ant's servants the car wee, suddenly and without warning st-i.rted,
anl, suddenly, without warning, stopped with a jerk while appellee
was standing on the platform or steps of the car attamptinp; to
leave the same .
In the ssconi count the negligence alleged is th^t while
appellee was alighting from the car appellant's servj.nts suddenly
startBi the car without warning to appellee and by re-son thereof
appellee was thrown and injured.
In the third count the allegation of negligance is that
while plaintiff was in the acting of alighting the car was st-.rted
Ilea .oT'! .nsO
,99ll9qqA
i?iioe . - • .sv
6 88 .Ax (^
. tn^IiSqqA
.1, .£)T.-;9H
.OOa,^"; 10^ J-as .-: ai exrlT
Jtjjoo tiJJOixo 3cfJ n . tenijsgjs i^snsvoosi ssllsqqjs rfoirfw
evsrf o* bQ^eLIs settulai. Isaoeieq lot JJtua . at xfauoD f^iio©*^ lo
sno sroT^ gxrld-rigil^ 1:o :^os sriit ni ©Xixfw ssllsqqi? ^d t9als.&aue nssd
.TSTsneaa^q js esv erie rfoirfw nocfi; st-so cfssT+a a'tn.^IIoqqB lo
-ex/a J-on asot sonsJbiva 8xl;t :J-.'r.rW J-nallaqq^ Ycf t'smxalo ei: tl
-i£lo9Jc exfJ- xii: fcanJtiitnoo scnegilgsn Ito aaoit:i-ge£L^ 9ri.+ 'io y^-= ni£*
taii^ 9rf* nl .^d-mroo n/o^ "io ^ ;;i:tj3Tj3lc9£ sriT .enoi^Ji;
i8gn9e8J3q £ ,99Xl9qqB eltdv tsrft et ta-^ells eocis-gil-geci ©rft ;J-m;oc
nv/c isrf 10^ noitiJ".o £ii£ 9i£0 9jj£ r'- d t99T*a a'd-nxilleqcr^ no
edi- S3 £>eqro;te f-M dolxfv; ij30 grf* 9VjS9I ot gn.:tqm9d-;t£ b^sw ^yi-g'iija
-3i.=rfo3if) Tiol 90£lq Icjjsjj 3rf* :fn tgg'rd"? iJ-i/nXjeW ta£ am^tA lo ignioo
-^en ,vIa89l9T30 oa ,etn-3V^9B atJ: ^cT ^tn:^Ll^qqs ,ei3gn9aaj3q lo gnl
t bs'gsnsia tnc gvoit Y-^s^elafoai tn^ \Lfas-gi.L
'llQqqs' to sssnljjlIIiiBnx; tni; j-nemsg.^nsma im ^sonegilgan arit riajjoirid"
,fce- \-jorftlw La." Y-f^^^s^fc^a ,3.sw tc^so edt sta^vzea s'&a^
ee.;. - slitfw iiQl ,: ligqqod'a <gfrlnT£w tyod^+xw ^^inebtue ^tajs
.'liJqirot o mTo'i:!" ^Iq edt no g^-ttniEj-a a£w
• am. '8 ^ili 9V^i9l
alJtrfw &£ti& Bi be-^eliJi aonegllssn 9x1* Jnuoo Inooea arft nl
Yln9.tx.u9 a*n.svT98 ' o 9riJ moi^ gaitifgil^ a-sw 99XXeqq£
^oeiBdt noa'"9T y- ,:^nxni5w iisod&trr a.'.-o edt ^t&i^ie
.fcsTX/rnx fcnjB nwoTrit bj3W 99XX9qqj5
^ ^rf* ei ©ona^lXggn lo .■ sri* cfnjjoo brtdi srid' nl
teti.+e a-?! ^nltfrfgiiJB ^o snJttoB erft al a^w t^X:fni.':Xq aXirfw
without notice to appellee causing the car to ;ierk cnl by reason
thereof pli-intiff was thrown.
In the fourth count it is allege! th-.t while appellee was
about to alight from the Oc.r the c"r wc-b caused to be sullenly and
violently started and by reason thereof plaintiff was thrown and
injured.
In actions of this cbare.cter it is only necessary to allege
and prove three things; (l) facts showing the existence of a duty
on the part of the defendant to exercise c;-.re to protect the plain-
tiff from the injxiry of v/hich he complains; (3) the failure of the
defendant to perform that duty; and (3) an injury to plaintiff re-
sulting from such failure. N. S. C. Co. v. Fromm, 286 111. 354;
Bahr v. N. S. D. Co., 334 111. 101. These three elements constitute
the gist of the declaration and must be met by proof strictly con-
forming thereto.
There was evidence tending to show that the car stopped at
the corner of Adi-ms and Walnut streets, that appellee then left her
place in the car, went to the back platform, took hold of the ha.nd
rail with her right hand, put her right foot on the first step below
the vestibule floor of the car and was in the act of taking her left
foot clear from the floor of the vestibule to the step, when without
any warning, th^ car started up slowly in the usual manner of start-
ing and went from six to t^/eive feet with her in that position when
it suddenly stopped with a jerk wrenching and twisting appellee* s
body and causing a dislocation of her right knee.
The three elements above mentioned were averred in the first
cciint of the declaration and theeviience above set forth strictly con-
formed to, and if the jury believe 1 it, proved, these three essential
elements of said count.
Appellant contends that appellee was guilty of contributory
negligence in rem; ining in the position in which she was. It is
only claimed that she rem:.ined in this position while the car trav-
elled frorr six to twelve feet. It was a question o^ fact for the
jury to determine from all the circumstances r;hether or not appellee
exercised ordinary care for her own safety and we cannot say that
-3-
e-^si'^ i-:? vr-2asoaxi Aflfto c r;irft to anoiito^ nl
v-^.: onLV■^^i:xe ^ :' ' '^nlriO.-*:: (l) iagnirf;? 99irf* svoiq i)n^
- _ „ a^Jbnslsfc arf* ^o tiisq erf* no
8ri.t "o -Tij.', , ., ; .liislqffioc erf rfolrfw lo \:iui;ni: 3ii;f noal llit
-91 'lij-crrl n. (s) Ln^ j^tjui; JM* mrto'iisq o* tn£bas'i.9b
j^5£ .III S2S ,-.TC7 . . oO .0 .5 •T'f .biuL£.^\ rfoi/e moi^ gniJIua
s^utii-Bnoo a;tnerrtsX9 eairit sssriT .101 .S ,.oO .0 .8 .H .v irfiia
-noc vltoiiJe looiq yd Jem scf tauia bas aot&st^Ioet ecit to itaJtg sriJ
.o:f3i8ri;t gnicmol
;t-; t3'"c'c*8 T. -'. ■ ot -gatbaet QoasbtvQ b/jp) sisrfT
TP, .^seitr^ :^0frXj6W fsrt^ eausijA ^o isnioo srft
iin.-f: "^ ot J-nsw »i^o arid' nx aojslq
woIscT -s"^:- ~^ii :t©: . ... ii.ori :f-rigii lerf rf:''iw Xl^si
■t-r - "nc- "-D 6ri;t lo rooL^ eluriitasv srfj-
■"no-f-^i" T-'r ,Te+E 9r'+ Dt : o looll 9rit moi^ i^slo tool
- : Is qu b3&i.:ia iso sri.t tgnini^w yns
n:^ iil Tsrf -'x avisr:^ ct xxa rcioil cfrrsw tnjs gni
8*5sll8crq3 :2nit3irrt [ orr'-^TVT ■ ^ . .itiw isqqota ylnatfci/e d'i
. -617 noltJSooXaxi; ^ gniax/^o tn^, ytocf
" bsiiev£ S19W tsrrc^tnrsrr; svoc'.: ':^iT^it!9X9 Q'3ici& 9riT
•'rtotT+? -■'^fio'^ :^?-5 9^- :.qtf£islo9b erf* 'lo touoo
- .. I9cf ^tsjl edt' tl bos ^ot tgniiol
.j-fluoo Li^a lo ad-n9m9X9
YTo :;■ ■'':■ ~c:- ~- 't ?,tn9fr:oo tnjXXoqqA
nl gnxni -;m9i at eoas'gil^aa
srfj to' vl 9vX9V'.t oJ xie moil b©Xl9
seXXr.: XXjs moil snimtectsi: ot yiuj;
d-.C' 3 fmo isii Tol 9i£0 YisniLio £i9aXoT9xe
the jury were not justified by the evidence in finding that she iid
exercise such care.
Appellant claims th=t the verdict was contrar^' to the weight
of the evidence. While there is some conflicting evidence in the case
there was evidence sufficient to sust^.in theverdict if thejury believ-
ed appellee and her witnesses. This they evidently did. Weighing the
evidence is peculiarly the province of the jury and we would no"^ be
justified in setting aside their fxniin?r in tiie case.
It is assigned for error th. t the court erred in allowing
appellee's witness. Dr. Farnum, to testify th-.t he believed that the
likelihood was th- t appellee would h ve some permanent manifestations.
Dr. Fsrnum, after testifying as to appellee's condition was asked this
question; "Have you an opinion as to whether or not this condition is
a permanent one?" Appellant objected that no foundation had been laid
and as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and calling for a con-
clusion. The objection was overrulled. The witness answered: "I
would have you bear in mind that I saw this patient but once and it
is a difficult matter for any physician to use the v:ord 'permanency,"
after a single examination. In my judgment, however — ". Here the
witness was interrupted and was aksed the question: "What is your
opinion?" The defendant objected because no foundation had been laid
:.nd as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The court then said:
"Objection overrulled. He may answer with reference to the probable
future consequences." Appellant's coiinsel then objected as followat
"We object as the probable consequences are too remote and not suf-
ficient or definite enough to render the testimony competent. Test-
imony of probable results is not competent. "The objection was over-
ruled and the witness answered: "Then I would say, as I said before,
that the matter of describing 'permanency* from a single examination
is a difficult matter. I Baw_^l^iB woman but once. I believe that the
likelihood is that she will have some permanent manifestations." Ap-
pellant^B counsel then objected to the answer as not competent, toe
remote and speculative and moved the answer be stricken. The motion
was overruled. The evidence was not competent and should have been
Lit
saeo 9dt ni ecaai
-veiXocf ^flx;^« • ■■
aH-" •'.nr^ ('■'>■ r.."'
s.-i
■ ei
a 1x1+ bQ-ieL ....;... '
-ncc ... ..... ^: ;. --..
I" Ti:9T*)W5fl*= eaaatt .. ,
Ji tn.-: eoiT'- 'r-.r f .a? i.f .?•':; ^lif"'-
^sLf'r ^bfl 6i5'" ^lul ar.
.ai^o x(ou3 seIoisxs
■ii.-XIaqcA
••n9loiT:!tjja sonstiva siw'eisrl^
I', i-lluosq ai sonsLive
..:,..: -, . .i:i>tt9e fll Jb9i1:l:f3iJQ
,....:..._.. .-. ,3ascTfiw a*99ir9qq£
row ssXIsqqjs rt rlj- a.s7T fiborfiXs^IlI
::9qqA "feno trreiusmiaq js
. . ■ ^xjt t^Tistsqinoonl a^ trijs
■eirjj^'iovo p.i.7.' nai:d'08j;efo ©rfT .noxejjio
:;:x i59Cf yo^ avjsil Jbli/ow
" ,Y0XieiiBirT9q' .. . . n&tote'^dq xaa tot iQ&&sm tli/oi^^ll) £ si
9d& SI-?:" ." — rtev9Y.'0£l ,:^n^.nv^jJ••■ ^ .ji rrT ..ffo:-:f£jrrlm£7:© signia £ ao3'^£
•;i/ov ■ .:■ ;■ ■','"' Tfiox^asL'; 3^qjjiT9*nl a-sw eeen*iw
. . iTUO?: on SBurr^ii'-. bQ&oerrSo tasr-taslst srfT "Tnolniqo
rfcijsB n^rlt ^tloo =£fT ."•^•r'^:? • x'-i'Ii-^'iii ,:fii8;tecTmo£)rti ai'"l)ajG/
eicT-sdOTq en: . ;. _ „ . _. ^ .... ... .telLuiiavo noid-osQcfO"
rawoIXol £jc tsifosccfo nsd* Iseassoo s^i-aslIsqqA ".adonaupsenoo 9iufjj"i
-■^08 :foa has 9:^ora^1 ooJ ^.i,-, £3r:n?ij rcuToo 9X(^jscfotq sxfct" bjS toe^do aW"
-t?-r .:^n9*eqmoo y^o'^*'^^ - - ot xfgi/ons 9*ini^6t lo tnsiol^
- .evo a/;w noi^osr;cro srIT , tsq.'noo *on ai atXuBST Blcfjscfonq lo Y^oml
^siol&d bisB I .T nsrfT" rtsTawan^s saentlw srftf. tn£ tsXi/i
rxoi J-£nim£xe sir ' .:.i-iT.9q' gnxcfxioast' ^p TSJ^^rn 9if;f *£riJ
)ri:f ti^di- svsi: i|;jwfi8 I .iai-;t^ai cfXyolllii) a ai
-rjA ".sn. vlxisin tnexr^m-Ts cv/^rf XXlw arfe t.sxf:^ ai f)ooriiX©3flX
»
oot ,*n9*9q!BOo foR B-B ter- oc^ i-aJcsQcfo nedcf Xsam/oo a'*naXX9q
noitorft erfT ,a9:iot-. aroni bn£ svitaXjJoaqe bn^s stoaset
xies'l -n'-3xf fcXjJO asJ-Qqmoc ioa asv soaefciva srfT .fcilxJiiavo a^w
\
stricken out.
Here surmise or conjecture c^xnnot be reg-5.riei ar proof of
future coniition. Fxpert witnesses c?-n only r:ive their opinion as to
future consequences that are shown to be rep.sonably cer+-.=:..in to ensue.
17 Cye 336; C. C. Ry. Co. v. Henry, 63 Ii" . 142; Lyons V. C. C. Ry.
Co., 35Q 111. 75; Kimbrough v. C. C. Ry. Co. 273 111. 73; Alm-.nn v.
C. C. T. Co., 343 111. 363; Li^uth v. C N. T. C@. 244 111. 244; Filer
V. Peoria Ry. Co. 200 App. 111. 4S7; Ehrharit v. Conn. Fire Ins. Co.
111. App. 3ni Dist. opinion filed June 29, 1920/ ^e lo not, however,
consiier this error reversible ae Drs. Levitin ani KE^nnopel both
testifiei to the perijiancy of some of appellee's ailments and there
was no evidence offered to the contrary by appellant.
It is claimed that the damages are excessive. Appellee at
the time of the accident wj.g about 35 ye'.rs of -ige rni h- 1 enjoyed
good health prior there to. Witnefiser- ifor both ai-^pellee ani apr^ellant
testify that by the accident appellee's right knee was dislocated.
This dislocation was pulled back into -^Ir ce by two rren st the scene of
the accident. Dr. Kannapel, her attending nhysicirn, testifiei that
in the year and a half between the accident ani the ^rial he had call-
ed upon appellee professionally 335 or 330 times, ani that on each
of these occasious he saw her, talked with her ani examined her; that
she had pain in the limb. There is evidence th-^t there was a rupture
or breaking of the spinal arteriea along appellee's spin- 1 cori, de-
stroying the nerve tissues and that this wc s brought about by :■. sudden
jerk or twisting of the bc4'; thst as a result thereof she has a par-
tial paresis of certain flexor muscles of the forearm ani hand; that
she ha? cert in areas ofanesthesia, that the grasping ability of her
right hand was greatly decre.-sed in corr.parison with her left; that
there was a paralysis of the center of urination in the ST)inal cord
BO that she could not hold her urine and urine would dribble from
her; that she was unable to hold her neck in an upright position with-
out wearing a support; that she suffered excrutatinrr pain and that this
-4-
•io loo'i
tuo cts:ioit&
Qiuiu'
:r sea
.) .0
HI'
. riX .III
: noo
iv9 on e£v
fc6Y0f;r.
-■il
Tis©^ eri* xii:
'l deXIsqq.'j noqu bo
.0 sasrit io
i^q tiSff -i-;
>fliij391Cr TO
jVTsn eri;t ani^^c
i*a*wir 10 Jlasj;
Icftfi-yi
-r-r.t
tXi/oo axis .^jsxi:f oa
condition was permanent. If these conditions existed as the result
of appellant's negligence and the jury evidently found they dil, we
cannot say that the veriict is excessive.
The judgment is c.f firmed.
tiueoz ^cit ajs fcateixs a^
aw .fcli
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ^ . , . „ ^
SECOND DISTRICT. f I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court.
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said xA.ppellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.
h
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
e
'.-SSi^
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine l^i^ndred and
twenty, within and for the Second District of the State of
J'
Illinois: > /
\ /
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Jus t i ce .
Hon.ljJOHN M. NIEHAUS, Ju0ice.
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justice.
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk,
CURT S.,,AYERS, Sherl/f
t>
•■^6
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wi t :
Tillman Anderson, by
Christopher Anderson,
his next friend,
• Appellee,
V3, Appeal from Grundy
Thomas T. Fletcher,
Appellant,
2191A. 336
Hec.rd, J.
In Aurust 1914, one R. F. Booth, being the
o.-mer of a farm in Kendall coiinty, known in the evidence as the
Miirley farm, entered into .. written oontr.ot .ith appellant to
sell the same to him, posaeaaion of the premises and deed to be
given Marii 1, 1915, In the fall of 1914 Elias Knudson, as tenant
of appellant, did some fall ,7ork on the premises and on March 1,
1915, moved on ani took possession of the same, and remained there
on an tenant of appellant until .after March 33, 1918. Subsequently
to entering into, the contract a dispute arose between Booth -:nd
appellant as to the niiraber of a ores in the farm ani as to the
amo\int of the purch-^ae price. On June 35, 1915, Booth filed in
the circuit court ^ bill against ap-ellant for the specific per-
formance of the contr ..ct .vhich bill he -..f tervrards dismissed. Knuison, a
as appelli-nt's tenant ./orked the farm in 1915, 1916, .nd 1917, deliv-
ering to appellant one-h If of the crops as rent, but up to Mi.rch 33,
1918, appellant ha i not rojeivei a deed for the f rm»
On the last mentioned day Booth -.ni appellee, Tillm.n Ander-
son, whom Booth had hired for the pixrpose, v/ent with team and
WL.3;on to the Murley farm, j^nd after learnin.^: from the tenant where
the oats, which had been rown on the premises the preceedin^ year,
were took these lo^^ds away in the wa;on, one in the mornin -nd two
after dinner, deliverin them to a nearby elevator,
-1-
yljxiuaO moil X->&qqA
^©QlX&noA
,*niiXl8qqA
.sv
8 8£./,lexS
^ -■- ^^ .L ,L-ixi9H
8£[j- rnxycf ^rij-ooS .'5 .H ano ^jMei d'ax;;fixrA nl
edi ; . 8onai)Jtv9 od;f at avon^ tX&OJJOO IljabnsS nl aiijs'l ii lo rtonv/o
80 o" noxReeaeoq titijtif o^ DffljSB sxlJ" II»e
d-nijns^t xia ^Xei : srft nl ,5X91 »X rfacxiM nevlg
,X ££oa^ no ba-^^ Beeimdiq arid- no aiiov.- XXjsI eraoe iDiJu ,;tr[*5XXeqq£ lo
;f^ooa n
-'i©q ox 'tie 90
xmeiij f
-viI©jD jVX
noxseoeaoq ^ooJ in^^ no Levom »6X8X
r rl Cxd-nu J-n-jXXeqq..; 1o taj^aaif b-h no
i'OJaicfnoo Qd& oiat -Qnlioina oi
to iticfintrn axl* o* ea^ d-noXXaqqiJ
amjL nO .soiiq QB^^doiuq ^dt 'io iasjotus
o'l i-n^I toxroo :fi0cixo exIJ
^^xf XXicf doXxl^ Jo-sUnoc eriJ lo soniMtiol
DjL ni it beTirov. ia^^nt^:} e' J'nr.XXeqqjs 8£
f-eno tnjaXXsqqj: o* gniis
^ ■:! .:i vtxixiXXeqqii »8XeX
.oaotSaem itBJsX add- nO
. 380qiuq 6xft aol Jbf>a2il biiri diooB. moifTs ^noe
. •ii:'i YoXa^lI <id& o& no^-ijw
ad;}- no nwoi nsed L^id doldv- taJ-jJO sdd-
odd- njt YiiTfB ei'JiOX seed* jfoocf ©new
Ycf:t^©n .' 0? casd.t niisviXeij jaennlL tstlsi
Appellant learning thc^t the oats were being removed and taken to
the elevator by Booth and appellee v/ent to Yorkville, the county-
seat, and after talking about the matter with CI .renoe Williams,
who waa then Judge of the County ooiK-t, but not ... licensed attorn-
ey, went with him to. the office of u Police Magistrate of Yorkville,
where appellant swore out a warrant for appellee's arrest, charging
him with larceny of the oats in question. Appellee was arrested by
th6 Sheriff, bound over to the gri.ni jury by the Police M^tgistrate
and by the gr;^nd jury indicted for the larcey of the oats. A nolle
•prosequi was entered to the indictment by the st-te's attorney.
Thereupon, appellee, by Christopher Anderson, his father, as next
friend, brought suit for malicious prosecution against appellant. A
trial resulted in a verdict for appellee for the sume of OlO,000«
Upon motion for new trial appell&e remitted $3500,00 and thereupon
the court rendered judgment for $7,500 in favor of appellee against
appellant, from which judgment appellant had perfected hia appeal.
It is contended by appellant that the judgment is manifest-
ly excesaive.
Appellee at the time in question was 18 years of age liv-
ing with and oorking for his father a few miles from the M\irley
farm. He was familiar with the controversy bet.7een Booth and app-
ell..int concerning the farm. He kne. that appellant hai contr .cted
to buy the farm and that Knudson as appell^-nt's tenant, had taken
possession on March 1, 1915, and had harvested for appellant the
crops for the years 1915-16 L.n i 17. Before startinj^ to get the
oats on the day in question his father had told them he would bet
they would not get many o ts, that appellant would stop them. While
not guilty of larcenr he was guilty of assisting in taking and sell-
ing the property of another without any warrant of law. He was not
confined in jail, and w^s only in the custody of the sheriff for a
few hours. No special ciroumstance of publicity, shame or hiomil-
iation are shown in ag.grevation of appellee's dami-ges. Hs testified
-2-
■^d-mjo; '^ d&ooQ. Y<-' -i^s ed^
^Qlli; iJ oi- Mill ri*lw tnew j^®
•gtii-gr^dc ' .^t i-n^*:': o aaowe *nii,IJt©qq^ aieriw
V'cf i»ed-ae^ .c.otiBeisp ai eJ-.'o sxl* lo xahotaL dilv atd
^&r,iiel^^M &oiIo<i edi Ycf ^i^^'' ^^''''O iJaiJOcr ^lli^edB dd*
oI.:or , xot i>33'ciiJcinJ; X'^t ijfl-'T;^ yrf* yd Ln£
.xeaio:fjB 8*9*- toxi»nJ: L;f;~&*ne tu v Jjjpeeoig
oXo. axlj-ja'j eJbi ,noa:cax>aA ^texiqo.+ airmO -^cf ,8©II©qc-;^ ^^oqi/&1eIf^
L ,ta suoioiLjm rot ttife id'gsjond ^baQlil
,0' o majse eifJJ" loi ©eXIs- j^cibiev .. at loi JUteei XsJt.ad"
iid- Twan aol nox^toni noqU
jpni.-:,^.. s . .s:-:').is 'to %ov£t at OO^tT'i^ aoi taem;^Lul tjB'i9ijt:si titsoo ed;t
.Il.c- :r .. eid iJB&oa'iieq Jbaxf ^tniilleqqw tixep^Lr/i; doidw atoil »*a*iXJ;eqq/i
-o2 3ljfcfl*;ra el !tii©iB§i)tr(; sdt tjaitt j-flAsXIoqqjj Y<^ £)»iJ^^^t^oc si *!
•evieeeoxe yl
-vil £>^ lo s-i«8Y 8X sj:w noxlesap ni smit «4# *-« eeXXsqqA
'iQlii.M &di JuO-x. 3d[*i3^ £JLd 10^ goljficw Lnii d*Jtw gnJt
-qqij ba^ d&QoQ. s:&Q\yf&d •^ai^voi^noo cx£* ricfiv. i-ilim^l b^w aH ^moijl
b»tQ^:'i&Ttoo hod ta.^ .-I'd &E .taiB'x exIJ ■^ataiaoaoo inaLle
edJ ia..i.ioqr, .o.^GJI ^X xloiiJi hq noieeeeaoq
•^■i" ni*i^;Je aaole aX-ciX^X 81*3©^ &di rol Bqoio
*scf bL ;-,jii aoiJeac jj a£[j ao Bt^o
-XXee Dtm ^nlafjs* ni §aiJBi;pB*!3 lo '•fjXiiis {©on^X lo ■\j;JXlijg ton
tea a.:v eH ,v»jjX lo iaaxisyi lyii', J-irori*jtv; loii^on-: lo Yi-ti:&qoa:q ejlcf gai
-It.'jrija '-0 £ist..£le (Y^iO-iXcfuq lo ftoao jcoaqa ol .Euuod w^l
Jbsilltae* eiH . e as^^m-:. e'eelleqqjs !:• noic»-f-.voti;33x: ni rcwode «':t-e floi*-^;!
thut immediLLtely ;a.fter hia arrest he felt ^eak and later was
ashamed to meet people a,ni tha-t the case worried him. The
sheriff testified that when he told appellee that he had a ivar-
rant for him appellee smiled and l;.ughed. Aopellee was put to
aix expense of ^250 in defending himself on the larceny charge and
lost five days on account of the o:.3e in attending hearings and
court and spent four or five days in preparin his defense.
Ylhen verdict is so flagrantly exces iive as to be only
accounted for on the grounds of prejudice, passion or misconcep-
tion of the c>ise, a remitteur does not remove the prejudice, pas-
sion or misGonc: ption, -a such elements may have entered into the
finding of. other facts important to the issue itself. Lowenthal
vs. Strong, 90 111. 74.
Under the facts of this case we regard the judgment of
$75©© so grossly excessive as to require a reversal of the jud^
ment. Some other alleged errors are argued by appellant in his
briefs and arguments, but as ibost of these questions will prob-
ably not arise upon ^nother t±±al and as appellant's counsel upon
the motion for new tri..l when the trial judge said to him "I
would be delighted and plecised if you have amething on v/hich you
rely for reversal*, if you .yould let me know what it is, and maybe
I would change my mind", did not see fit to present these questions
we do not deem it neoesaary to discuss then;i.
The judgment is reversed a d the cause remanded.
-3-
;..-, - sanaqxe rt-
l svll *aoI
aoij-
. .,j o , (K .^ ;;nooeJLra lo nole
.jIII Oe t3noi3-8 .EV
^itC'^ Tiff 7-1}tn'J
-JO. ..id-ESL'p Bteuj J.' troiii a-: tucf ,Efno:^irpTs:, tn^^ alsl^-
.-..iw I... lit wsn lOi noUoa ed&
.jc-- rfri-fr -ro -rriiij-^rai .. j: ;.. ..Jxrow
irr-' 9« r^BS. .J!x.a level lo^ "^lei
assoexi cfl jnesi J-on oii 9W
STATE OF ILLINOIS, |
SECOND DISTRICT. | ^^- J, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affi.x the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twent}'.
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
u
a
/f
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the mfth day of October,
in the V^ar of our Lord one thousand n/ne hundred and
twenty, within and for the Second Di^rict of the State of
111 ino i s :
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pris iding Just i ce
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, jistice.
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Jjtstice
ARTHUJI E. SNOW, Cler]^
CURT Sv AYERS, Sher/ff. 2X9 -*A« O O O
BE IT REMEMBEREO^hat afterwards, to-wit: on October
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit :
I
Gen. No. 6838,
John A. Rusaell,
Appellee,
vs. Appe:il from Kane,
Bo-rd of EducL-tion of District
Nxanib.r 87 of Kc.ne County, Illinois,
Appellcint.
2191.^- 6^^
He: rd, J.
This is -n appeal from a judgment for $7,500,00,
rendered by the circuit court of K:^.ne county in favor of appellee
o-gainst appellant for solicitors fees for service rendered in partition
suit entitled Mercy Hospit 1, et al, vs. Board of Educ tion of District
No. 87 of Kane County, Illinois, et al, neard in the Superior Court of
Cook Co^onty and taken b- appeal to the Supreme Court, whose opinion
therein is found in '.'o. 281, p . ge 582, to which opinion reference is
made for :. statement of the questions of law and fact therein involved.
There was no express contract between the p rti'JS c.s to the
amount to be paid appellee for solicitors fees and the Witnesses in be-
half of appellee in addition to himself were four lawyers of K..ne County,
wh^ S ve their opinions as to the usual and customary charged for such
legal services as appellee performed, such opinions r.nginj from $7,000
to $10,500. Appellant offered no evidence and rer^uested no instructions.
At the request of appellee the court gave the jury the follow-
ing instruction: "The jury are instructed to t.ke the case L.nd decide it
according to yoxir sworn consciences, remembering you o.re to find a ver«
dijt according to the testimony given you in the caGo. You -re net to
indulge in su ositions upon which no evilence h..s been ^-iven or offered.
You h .ve no ri'^ht to trust you own opinion in the c se, unsupported by
proof. Jurors h.ve no ri-ht to indulge in surmises and conjeot'ja-es on
subjects cone rning which no evidence h.- b.en offered. They are bound
to take the testimony for their sole guide."
-1-
,8S88 .oM .nsO
tllaeBi/fi .A nrloL
,aellsc:-'
.ev
RA
«00.00c.
tnecigLi/i; .s rao'
- tlqeoH TfOTaM baXlitna i-itra
n:tfoO aas'S. lo 78 ,oM
noifliqo esorlw ^t1uoO smeiqxrS offJ o^f L^eqq^i -cf itc . y^^jjoO i^ooO
arBbaei soivx
oju-i)3 xo biaoh
Bs. sonaasls'i noin
.tavlovni
8n;t or
GOODS'
i&noid-c.ijii'^.nJ: ore l
:.oi siiir Y^f
lo ae^
be.
i.rir'o'i ai nleiQjlt
^.y LJtjuq od ot iauotaji
J- noitiLLjs al selXsqqis lo IXiiri
■^ftoxnlqo itodt ev^^g oriw
; eoolvaoB XjsgeX
on Lei&llo ^ttiiXXeqqA .OOetOX$ oi
sdT" :nol;foira;}-BnJt gni
onsioenoc mo we 'jjj-oy o* gniLaoc
;t 0* gnlliooofl *l
noij-jceo ua ni og^^^
^eua* oi- id-Qii oa ©v^ixl r
>".v..rf sioiisJj .loo
MVi j^flinifjonoo eJoaf;.
It ia clL^imed by appellant that aa all of o.ppellee'g testimony
as to the value of the.oervicea w:.s opinion merely, that this instruct-
ion required the jury to make ■-. finding in aocoriunce with such toat-
imcny and elimin.tod the jurors ovm independent knowledge, experience
..nd opiniona and was therefore error.
It has been frequently held that in fixing attorneys feea
courts are not neoess^.rily governed by the opinions of attorneys ..s
to the value of such 'servioea, but that th^:; court should exercise its
own judgment b;-sed on its o.vn knowledge and experience in such matters.
Goodwillie v. Milliman, 56 111. 533; Metheny v. Bohn, 164 111. 495;
McMannery v. C. D. & V. R. R. Co., 167 111. 497; Lee v. Lon^.x, 319
111. ^18; Beineke v. Si.nitary Oist. ^60 111. 380; Gentleman v. S nit-
sry Dist. 360 111. 317; People v. Gilbert, 363 111. 85. The reason for
this holding is as stated in Goodwille v. Milliman, aupra, that the
chancellor "has the reciuisite skill ...nd knowledge to form some idea
us to *hv t ia fair ..nd re; .sonable compensation, " In f .ct the che.no-
ellor ia very frequently in much better position to form ..n expert
opinion as to the reasonable value of the services than the witnesses
testifying as experts. This reason does not, howev-r, apply to a
juror yiho h^s not had th; requeisite knowledge and experience to
forr; an expert opinion. He v/culd not be allowed to testify to hia
opinion as a v/itii^as, for the reason tha' the la.v hold him to be in-
competent to form an opinion. The juror is sworn to decide the c .se
a, cording to the evidence and while it ia unquestionably the duty of
-~ jinror to test the truth and wieght of the testimony of the witnesses
in the light of the juror's experience, observation and reflection and
to consider the matian Motives which influence mankind, yet this
duty should not ^ive him the right to violate his oath and sub-
stitute for the sworn evi.ien-:e hia unsworn opinion ./hich the 1-w
s- ys he is not competent to form. While this insturction ia inL.c-
c^lrate in some of its terras we do not consider its giving reversible
error.
It ia contended that the ooiort erred in permitting the
opinion witnesses to testify regarding the usual and customary charges
-3-
Ynofiiir ■:<:*■ e'sel : -
-cf ',.v:r--:ai eldd tbii:f .■,•'.:.';
aesl e-janiott.. ; ni
ed^i seiuisxe tl'
GIc' ^x-no.. .
-3-lXl. : ,
10 J no . . '
■:.©i:)i emoe mao:
-> ot
-rrl ©d ot fflirf Llorf \?ijX 3d
^^ X&ub sritf
ba.- no
.1 nol;^orar"
::4.t*lni'
olviseed* lo . .::^ oJ e
ri mi
J/ iiijs exioinlqo he.
caooen ton 6Xti sJ-rmoc
aoivse-e ifcue io sxrlxv ad J c
. ;.oiBi IXxH .V otLLlvbooQ
. e^^aniaa i8£S , '.I
;"^I£ .III Oas .creia y'-
nlLIod alil*
di Bi\d* loIXeoiiijl;
nolniqo
.acfieqxL L^^liB^t
tscTpST: J odw no It;'
. oirrlcto Jnscrxe n^s .ttio^
rrolniqo
•'• j-notsqmoc
rlijiooi.-.
- lOTi/i; .
isfX aK:f ni
. aitas 9£f* asLienoo o:f
jn bluo'dB "^iis.
■■•Oil ai cxl BY ■■
emoB at o&Bits:
,1011.
: di
for such aervioea aa were perforKed by appellef , //ithout recjuiring
such .vitne'rjes to bci.3e their opinions upon U3u.-1 ch:.rges betv;een
p.jcties competent to contr..ct. The questions to ;.-ppellee's .vit-
neases should huve been so limited. R.ynold v, McMilL.n, 63 111,43;
McMannery v. C. D. & V. R. R., supra; Gentlem, n v. S.-nit^ry Dist,
supn.; People v. Gilbert, supra, but this objection w.. 3 not raised
without any objection vitiatever and appellant thereiTore cannot raise
the question here«
It is contended by appellant that the .judgement is exoe--i,ive.
It is not necessary for the purpose of this opinion to t.-te
in detail the p.^ticular services rendered appellant by appellee. The
eviience shows that appelle.; is an attorney of ability and high stand-
ing; th;-t the litigation covered a period of nearly three years; that
appellee devoted services, ..mounting in the a^^^regi.r to three mont. 3,
to the litigation; thatt./o weeks of this tiiiie vv;.s consumed in a trip
entitled to the income form !jl50,000 worth of property.
It is cl: imed by ;.ppellant that as the actual time devoted
by appell- e to a;opell::vnt 'a interests was only three months than an
allowance of $7,500 would be the equivalent to L.n inGor;:e fron profess-
ional services of ^"30,000 per annum and for that reason the judgment
is excessive. It does not neoess rily fo\'-0'/i that an attorneys earn-
ings for a year are four times what they are for a given three montha,
thereof, as even a first-class lawyer does not have a first-clas.s
case every day. Even if it lid so follovv, when we consider the rauoh
greater eurninga of fuaany men in other avocations, requiring leaa
preparation, skill and ;.bility, we can see no good re. .-;on .vhy first-
oLass lawyer should not h^ve a rross i-nnu 1 income of ^30,000 from his
profession if the services he renders his clients are re.vsonably »ortli
such . sum.
It is contended that the allowance of such a sum for an at-
torney's services is out of all proportion ^0 the salaries paid to the
judges of the circuit court. This is \xnque:stionably true, but it ia
a matter of common knowledge that attorneys fees in general are .-.t pres-
ent time out of ..11 proportion to the circuit judges salaries. In the
-3-
oixixqo
,ncMvi/ dcu8
haceen
, .V iioaajMoU
,eiQd xioid'aojjjj add-
•jq-'i Yd" i-aJjXisi'floo si d'l
jfl ;^on si il
:.z>-j. e&oxvicfc i^jIi/oirf'T-.q edJ Xi/jd"si:) ni
- lieqqa isdi «wodB soneLxvs
j*>u,j' 4a^j^&Y &i}%fii \(i'i-.*ii: xo i)Oi:ui>', > ijs%\j-voo aot&j^tilL Qxlt itxid^ ;sni
tseoivaea i.>9&QVhL selleqq^
qx'^; .. ai Leifiuejiiv owd-^J-odd" inoi*i53i4:,i-C, ©xIJ o;t
..::... OOO^OciX* iuzol eaiooni Qdt oi iQltlfae
bot.y omii;Io el ifl
^•nel^iviwp© sxft ec .;',yC4T^ to eoniiwollis
: OOUtO . 5 0XV188 Ijofioi
"~©fe6 iOxvj
fcC?x liiaiup©
-texi
-jii n..:
sxij
ton asOi. .'I .sviaaeoxs el
ijBs^j <£ aol.Bsnx
•oxj asY -:o«..t8ai± ij nsve bj^ jAoeiarit
. Jo -^caev© eeao
L rxsxn Y^'^^' •io againi-'je ist^ieag
jjii. Ili-'^E jnoi^tiiixsqoiq
■' . -''OdB aeijwjsl aeBSh
xviae ad* "ii noiaaeloiq
•flijje *i doxxs
q XXjb io ;ft/o ei eeoxviee a'^enio?
' 0.0X0 tteQL': . ?iroaio 8d* 'io es^Li/t
i.eXi*on.^ flOfiiraoo lo 'lai'tijin jb
aeixeX^e essijui; *iircaio sdd- ocf noi:fioqoaq IX ^ "io *uo emlcf d-as
home county of the writer of this opinion there aje twenty-one
lawyers in active practice of whom at least twelve have an annual
income from their profession greater than the annual salary of a
circuit judge. When we take into consideration the years of train-
ing, the requisite learning, their integrity and the great respon-
sibility resting upon them it is a notorious fact that there is no
class of o\ir citizens as inadequately compensated as our circuit
judges. Because a circuit judge is grossly underpaid is no reason
why an attorney should not receive reasonable compensation if he
earsn it.
In the present case four attorneys of high standing at the
Kane county bar, two of whom had been actively engaged in the lit-
igation in which appellee's services were rendered, testified that
appellee's services were reasonably worth from $7,000 to $10,500,
Appellant did not introduce any testimony to the contrary. While it
is true that there is a reluctance on the part of attorneys to op-
pose a claim for legal services yet if appellee's claim was grossly
excessive, as claimed by appellant, out of the many attorneys ox the
Kane County bar and the thousands of attorneys in Chicago, where the
partition case was tried, certainly some witnesses could have been
obtained to have put a lower estimate upon appellee's services, 1/Vhile
in our opinion the amount allowed is high, it is a matter of common
knowledge that attorney's fees vary in different parts of the state
and even in different counties of the same circuit. The evidence
shows that fees are higher in Cook than in Kane county. The learned
judge before whom the case \vas tried, and who heard the evidence and
who from his local knowledge and experience in the allowance of sol-
icitors fees, was entirely capable of forming and exercising an in-
dependent judgement on the question, approved the finding of the
jury and rendered judgment thereon and we would not feel justified
in setting it aside.
The judgment is affirmed,
-4-
sno-Yd-nsv.d- stj= sTisxld" noiniqo ei-l:t "io istlmv add- 'lo y^^J^'o^ smod
Ii3JLrnnj3 «£ 3V£ri fvlavvd- ia&e£ :!•£ ciorlvv lo ecxj-oj^iq bvHojo ni ensYWBl
ii lo Tii-.l£a Ij3jjnnii oriJ njjxl^t isct-^&'i^ xioiaesloiq lisxld- raonl smooni
-xii^id- '±0 Q'ijzev Qdt noiJ-i^ieLxenoo od-ni a^jsj- sw nodW .sgLirQ d-iuoiio
on ai oasxld' J.srid- uOiil sjjoxaoj-on ^ ex Ji meriJ noqw -gaiiaQi xiilidtB
tlLfozio Tuo BSi bat^sneqmoo xLeis^upebi^ni. 8£ enesxd-io luo lo aaslo
noax'si on ax btjoqiQbmj ylaaois ax 3p,i'i/i; ctixroixo £ sairiioeS .essLx/t
eri '±1 noid-£anaqmoo sla.cnOB.tSQ'i evx&oe'i d-on LLuodb xeciioits ni; ydw
.d'X neiBQ
Qcii :fii ■^aiba^:^B xlgixi lo sYsnaod'j'jB ajjox aaxso d'nsasiq oild' nl
-j-xl Slid- nx L&s-^S^s i^Isvxd-cjs nesd Li^xl niorfw lo owt ^i^cf yJni/oo ensiX
Jerid- ieilxrasd- jiisasi/naT; aaaw ascivise e'oalleqqjs rioxriw ni noxd'^gi
.006tOI$ od- OOOtVi^ raoii £l:t'iov; Y^cfisnoeiisi ezev eocxviee e'ssXIeqq^
d^x sIxrIW .Y^i3ad-noo 6d& od- Ynomxlaed- vn^i eoisboifnl d-on ixJj d-n^iIsqqA
-qo od- e^QHiod-d^ lo d-iijq 8rf:t no aon^ioisLei s ei aisrid- d-^jrid- suit ex
YI&801J5 ajow KJiJ3lo a'sslleqqxi 11 :tSY asoxvise Ij:;s8I aol mij^Io is aeoq
8:ld- 10 8Yanio;td-^i ynjom arid- lo d-xro ^dniillaqqi; ycf Lsmxiilo ££ ^evxaaaoxs
ari^ aisriv.' ^og^ioxriO nx aveniod-d-ii lo eLn^awoxfd- edt iuna i^d Yd-nxroO en^X
need avj^ri biuoo Ba&aeniivi araoa Y-C^i^^^'^yo tLaxad- 8J3W aeJ30 noid-ld-ir.q
sIxdW .aaoxviaa a'aallaqq^i noqxr ad-jsmxd-ea lawol js d-jjq avj.iri od- ij8nx£^cfo
noiranoc lo leif^m ^ ei: d-x trisxri ax LswoIIju; d-nxroai-3 arid- noxnxqo ixro nx
9d-jj.:fa Sil;t lo cd-i^q d-naisllxL nx y^-^v asal a'YsnTOdd"^ d-i;£ld- agjjaIwon:j{
aonaLxva ariT ,fiuoiio ems^s and- lo aaxd-nuoo d-naiallxL nx nave has
L&nij:al ariT .Yd-niiroo an^Ji nx njjdi .^ooD nx larisxxl eaxj aaal d-^rid- awoxia
bas aonaixva arid- bi.i^&d orivv bnxi ^taxid- s£>v aeuio add- moriw aiolecf agi»x;i;
-Loe lo aonjiwoIXx; arid- nx aonainaqxa Lnii o;5^i;aIvvon3f I^ool aid moil odw
-nx nil s^xaxoiaxe la^ gnxmiol lo elcTiiqjoO Y-f&^i^na exjw ^aeal bioJxox
axid" lo ;-;nxLnxl odd- Lsvoiqq^ jnoiJeoup arid- no itnaraagjjjji; d-naLnaqaL
Lofixi^oai, Xaal d-on Llxrow aw bnis noaiaricf Jnamgi^i/i LaiaLnai Ln^; y^J^C
• eLxaii ol -gniiieB ni
.LamiillB ei d-narasLi/t ad?
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT. \ ^^- I. ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.
C^rk of the Appellate Court.
6/?«iq' j V ■') A
■•'(
- /V <<r->^
'T"/'-^?
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth da<f of October,
in the year of\our Lord one thousand nine hug^red and
twenty, within find for the Second District^f the State of
111 ino i s :
\
Present--The Hon. DOBRANCE DIBELL, Pres idi/g Jus t i ce
Hon. JOi% M. NIEHAUS, Justi^
Hon. OSCAB E. HEARD, Just/ce
ARTHUR E. 'SNOW, Clerk
CURT S. AYERS, SherifM
' 2i9^-^-^^^
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
\
I
Gen. No. 6G39.
Anna R. Keller,
Appellee,
va. Appeal from Rock Island
State Bank of Rock Island,
Appall- nt.
219I.A. 636
Niehaua, J.
This case was passed upon by this court at the
October Term 1918, and in opinion filed February 8, 1919 the judgment
of the circuit court of Rock Island county was reversed with a find-
ing of facts. A certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court, and on
review there, the judgaant of this court was reversed, because one of
the controverted questions of fact involve! was not passed upon, and
the cause remanded to this court to be again heard and determined.
Keller v. State Ban? of Rock Island 393 111. 553.
The Supreme Court summarized the facts discloaad by the
record, to be as followsj
"On June ft, 1914, Mrs. Pearl I. Hawley, who had
a sfvVings accoiint in the State Bank of Rock Isalnd, went
with her mother, Anr.a R. Keller, to the bank ani had the
account changed and a new book issued in the name of "Anna
R. Keller or Pearl I. Hawley." the chE^nge was made because
Mrs. Hawley feared that her husbani might interfere with the
account. The amount was |'1874,75, whioh was reduced by checke
(gf Mrs. Hawley paid from time to tine, anl interest was cred-
ited simi-annually. Mrs. Keller never drew any checks again-
st the account. Mrs. Hawley diei January 18, 1917, and soon
after Mrs. Keller, claiming there was a br.lance due on the
account, demanded payment, which was recused, and thereupon
the sue! the bank in as?.umpsit. The bank defended on the g
ground that it had paid the whole amount on checks signed by
Mr. Hawley. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plain-
tiff and a judgment for $1059.74. The bank claimed to h^ve
paid this amount on a check of Mrs. H-wley which the pl'in-
tiff in error claims was not signed by her, nr if it was eifmed
by her, was materially ch'-.nge i without her authority before pay-
ment.
-1-
.esoa .oM .nsO
,T3iIs]I .H sank
,3Qll3qqA
di^d .A.iexs
ifnsm^tu.t 9rft 9iei .8 y^^-" "''' '■■^r.^'^ ciolatqo al ba£>^8Lei ai^T redotoO
no tn.s ,d"i0oO eniPiqjjS 3£ft '-cT fcsirr^rrs sjsw i:TJ5ioi::!"iso A .e;fo3'i lo g^i
i-n^ ,0oqi; i:>988Bq *on a.sw fcevlovrrl itofil lo anoxJ-ssixp tatnsvot.tnoo srfJ-
»i)9alifiT9t9b fcfijs fci^sff ftx;3g£ scf ot tiiroc alri;t o* tetnstaaT: sbubo erfJ
.SS3 .III S<5S bn^Xal jfoof? lo ^n^S ecf^tS .v T9II9X
srft Ycf feeoloexfc eiJ-o^^ ^r't tgsii^rnrajjB &rsjoD gmsiqi/S sriT
rewoCIot a^ 9d o;t ,i:aoo9i
f>^rf oifw ,Y9lv'^ •! Ii£9^ .BiM .i'Xei ^§ snuL nO"
d-nsw ,tnlsal :ioofl lo >InjS'3 sJ'js^fa srit ni ^nuooo-s agniv^ia £
Silt JbjsrI i:njs rsfnad snt orf- ,T9lX93 .fl -nnA ^igdj-om Tsrf dtiv
jsunA" ■ - T 9ri,t al Leuael ^ood wsa 5 ba£ b^-ga^o tauoooa
9BJj.',09: ^;w egxi3rro sxi'i" " .yalw^K .1 Ii^s"? :to 19^193 .fl
9ff,+ ff.+lw «T?--=>.tni ^Irlgirn 1: n^rfeirff larf ;f^il;}- t9i-:9l ^^alw^H .atiM
-.tSTO a£w ifes-xstal tn^s ,9^1* o* amxt moil i?x-sq ^{sIw-aH .siM 13)
-nisg£ siDsrfo y^J^ wgit Tsvsrx •rgllaJI .aiM .YlI-i^rX/nnjs-jtnjiB t9tx
rooa Jbrc-s jVX8I ,ex yi^J^^jsI, iairfc '{9XwjsH .e^M . Jnjjooojs exfJ ;te
srft no 8i/i3 9on3X.?cf .3 £.sw gisrld- ;gnxrcxjGXo ^isXiaS .aiM T9;f^^
noqxj-ier'd- fcn^ .beeu'^st s^w lioiilw' ttngmY-aq t9tn.;m9Jb ,;tnuoooB
^ sdl- (TO b9£;n9*9iD ::rG.ccf exlT . tiBcrajF.a>? nx in^d 9--l;f Irgue 9ff6
yd tsHT^XB 82(o3rio no tnuoms sicriw ecii ti^q tjsri *x &£id& bauoTg
-at-iq srf& toJ *oi:fci?v £. ai teiiutai Ij^tit grfT .-/aXw-sH .iM
9Vi?rf ot betaiaio 3fr. ' - "" .^V.eaox|; aol tnemgfcuc i tn^ IIXJ-
-nx-Xq erf* ffoirfw . .b:cM lo 3lo9rfo s no jrrx/omjs atdi tiijsq
h0n:;3f8 P..-^ +X Jt To ,ipi ton e^w amx.3Xo loiie fix llti
~X-^ sto'-'ft:""' ytirod^us r&d n.-do xllsireSsfs a^zw ,"1911 vcf
.;tnsai
-X-
Mrs. Hawley livel with her husbv.ni, William C. Hawley,
on a farm ne^.r Ainsworth, Iowa, The contestel chekc was
written on a blank of the Commercial Savings Bank of Wash-
ington, Iowa, with a line drawn through those names ani
the worls "Rock Islc-.nd State Bank" ani Rock island. 111,,"
written above them. It was dated January 3, 1917, the
payee was the Ainsworth Savings Bank, and its amount was
^1079.48. It was presented for payment by the People's
Neitional Bank of Rock Island oiS January 13, 1917. It bore
the rubber 'stamp indorsements of the Ainsworth Savings Bank
the Iowa N;.tional Bank of Davenport, Iowa, and the People ♦ 8
National Bank. Payment was re'^used.the check w-.s stamped
on its face "insufficient funds," anl was re-^urned to the
Peoples Nctional Bank. This bank returned it to the Iowa
Nation:.! Bank, which informed the Ainsworth Savings Bank
by telephone that payment had been refused because of in-
sufficient funds and the check was coming back. Stephens,
the oashier of the Ainsworth Savings Bank, then authorized
the Iowa National Bank to change the am.ount, which was done
by L. G. Bein, assistant oashier of the Iowa National Bank,
drawing a line through the amounts writ+en in the body of
the check and in figures in the margin and writing 8.bove
them in red ink the amount $1059. 74. Bein also wrote on the
back o: the check the statement that the aimoxint had been
changed by that bank and was gxiaranteed to be tl059.74,
January 15, 1917, The check so altered was then deposited
again with the People's National Bank and on January 16, 1917
was presented to the defendant in error and paid.
On the 'day the check for *1079.48 was presented and dis-
honored the bank wrote a letter to Mrs. Hawley informing her
that payment of her check had been rifiused because of insuf-
ficient funds; that her balance was |'1059.74 and that a check
for that amount would be honored. Har husband testified that
he showed her this letter but not that she read it or could
have ree.d it or was conscious, and that the next morning he
went to the Ainsworth Savings Bank. There was no evidence
of any at:.tement made by Mrs. Hawley either at that time or
when the check wap signed. The plaintiff in error testified
that Mrs. Hawley was unconscious from January 9 until her
death, on January 18, and there is no evidence that she was
not. Stephens, the cashier of the Ainsworth Savings Bank,
testified that the check was first brought to him from Ha-Fley
with the name of the payee and the amount blank. Stephens
wrote in the name of the payeee and the araoxint, which he got
fron Haley, who had him figure the interest on the account,
Stephens then sent the check to the Iowa Nstional Bank for
collection, and when afterward informed by that bank that the
amount was not correct he conferred with Hawley, and then told
the bank that Hawley was willing for them to change the amount,
The Supreme Court fovind that there was two controverted
questions of fact involved in the case, namely, first! Did the
check bear the genuine signature of Pearl I. Hawley; and secondly,
was the check matetially altered after its delivery without her
authority. This coxirt found, that the check was the genuine check
of Mrs. Hawley, but did not pass upon the question rs to whether
-3-
,^9Xw£H .0 T^liil'! tLr::i(JasJii isi. nTXT7 LeviL ^elw^H .a:cM
e,?w c5/9rio ts-tasc^iioo sriT «£WoI iriitioweniA i.isn rai^l £ no
-rieaW lo ini-S esniv^S X^ioismflioO srl^ lo sfn.slrf « no nsd-Jliw
fcrtjs 932T;Tn 390:"f* rf^jjoirft nw£i£i sail £ rf*Jtw ,^woI ,not:53ni
",.IXI .bnelst aCooH fn^ "aln^a 9+/^cf^ tn.':;lel :!fooH" efciow id;f
erf.t ,Tiei «£ YiJSi;n.sI, ts^^i: Bs:n &1 .meri* svoc/js xT9:)'*x"tw
saw d-m;om£ a;ti tns .jfnjsB agniv«8 rfd"row8niA srft a^w ss^^q
e'slqos? 3i'f:f ^cf :^^^aIY^Q 10^ tstnsseiq bsw :M .8>.8V0xf
9iocf *I .TIGX ,SI ^fi-=jjn£L Bro in-=XeI ioofi lo ,\'n^a X^noXt-sH
i'ajss a-sniVBB rfd'TowenxA srfcf lo B&asmQaiotai qsaji&a 'i9d<iu'i Qdt
a'eXqos'? sdf ba£ ,j3W0l , itioqnsv.'iG lo jfn^H Xerrol^f.-W «woI srjjf
£sq^..^.te 9 ow slosrio 9fft .irisau'ltsi sew jHSiaY^*? ,jlas3. Isnoi&sZ
Qd& o* fcsfiTjjtsT srw JbnjB ".afcriif'i i-asioX I'iri/anX" 30a=l q^X no
3WoI srft o:)' JX fcsnTi/.teT injscf exxlT .^fnaS I.:aoX;f:;ll asXqoe*!
:(n£S 8^nXv£3 rf^iowaniA exf* beraio!:!:! rfoXxl"W .afa^a X-mioXJ^TI
-nX ^0 ssujsoscf Xssxjtsi nescf X\sd *n9tn^t--iq .Leiij- anorfqsXa* ycf
,en8-rfqs*8 .io^cf ^nX.'yiOO ajBW iosjXo Bii& Lii^ Btciu'i J'nsXoXUxja
t'9sXTOrf*0i:- ct9di ,:?x-tjH e^nXv^B f'tttowenXA edt lo leXxla^o edt
9aot ervi ffoXffw ,.fr- ' '0 o* ifnjsa XjsnoXd-.sH £woI edt
,jfcf.3? XsrroitBW £wc so tn^taXee^ trtXea .0 .J -^d
lo x^od srfj- nX tisr^ijv: e-izL.:.:-^ sd& d-^uord:^ eriXX s gnXwa-rl)
avof^3 ^nXtXi^' tn£ nt-gi3:c sci* crt a'^iusXl nX fcrra ioario 6ri*
erft no etcrw oeXb nia? .I'V.GSOXl tnuorrus 3dt -^ai bai at mexid"
nsecf tsd fnuotne srf* Jsctd- .tiramect^j-si 6ri^ jfosrip 9ri* ':o ioscf
,j&''!'.950X* 9cf orf' fcee^njsi£i;g a^w tas ^.asd ^jsd& ^d b3-§a:ido
tefiaoqet aadt asw tsi^tls. oa io3rfo sdT t'^lSl ,<1X ^i.'3un-sL
TXeX ,31 ^teurrjsL no Xfi« in^S X^noi^JsH e'eXqcsl arf* rfvtXw rrXjsg^
• fcX-'q fcnfi toils nX d-nabnalsi: edf o* fcstaaasiq saw
-aXb tnjs £9J-nsa3'xq aj3w Si^.STOX;^ xol Jtodiio ©ri-t ^afc ©rl^ rjf)
T9rf S^XmiolnX Y^-^W-fH . siM oi' is;t:*sl s etoin :iasd 9dt Xatonori
-IjjertX' lo 98Ui?oocf bsEX/aSi aeed i i?rf iosrfc xexi lo d-aasuj.-q t-ndi
•iOQdo ^- tirrfd' Xhjs ^V.eSCXlJ e-ev ^-on^Xod isrf, Sjadt ^eXxu/l t'nsXoXl
JbiI* XjsXlx.tasJ- Xn.sdsjjxl loH .tsionoxl 3o LXuow iauoai^ :^«i'ut 10I
fcXxroo 10 JX basn srfe t^riJ ton fud is.-tleX aXrf* lerf X)9woxfn ed
erf ^nXaTom tzsn srfd- -^ sdi tnz ,3jjcXoanoo a-vr 'lO rfX i;«0T;. sv^d
SDfisbXvs on ej^w 9i«ifT .irtsa EgnXv^S iij-iowaniA arij oif tasTt
10 ©mX* trrit tj? i9xld-X9 ^Ql^3U .siM ^cf 3£;i.fi: *n9m9*.:.;t« Y^-s lo
bsXlXtas* 10113 at llXtnxBlq srfT ..bengXe 5-:-w :(o9rfo Sfft rxerfw
teri XX tm; Q x'zMia^Jj rrroil ax/oXosnoonx; a^;?? y--^^-sH .bi1£ tf-^rfd-
s^w en's tBd& 9on9tXve on aX enerTt ttie ,8X y^-^^^s^ 00 ,dt£9X)
,3{n^a asnXv^S rfJ"iowanxA srIJ lo laXrfejso 9rfd^ .snorfqa^fS .ioa
Y9X'-v.8H moil mXxf ot ifrfgxroiQ' taiil SjSW afosrio erft t3rf;+ b^XlXJes*'
easdqs&B .jlasild tauomxi sdi '- — Y-sq ^dt lo 'i^ra^n sricf rfrf-Xv;
tog 9rl rfoXrfw ,iJ-niJ0in.3 orf* brii; -- ^at lo 9tn.3n sri* nX gtoiw
.tm;oDO£ Off* no d'89'r9tJ3X atft r 3.j.. . .ttXeT f:-;ri orfw ,^9-1^-" noil
10I afnjsa X£noXd-.sW ,swoI erft ot Jtoerfo 9riJ tnse nerf.t snoriqetS
srit tasri* :5fn*scf t,sxit YCf XaxciolxiX fcij3wi9tl£ nsxlw Xos ,jnoXtc3XXoo
fclot flSL'J fca£ »v®Iw.8H tltXw £:?iielnoo sri tooiioo ion B-r.v txiuom.-;
^.tm/offii5 9rf* ©gnjsrio o* ffi3nt 10I ^nXXXXw Bisw ^S-f^'-sH tjsri* iiijscf ar^t
t«ti9Voitfloo owt a£W 9i9rft *■ ■- rtuol ifiXfoO »ai9iqi;8 eriT
9rit JbXQ rtsiXl ^x-^s^o^n ,&c..o -..J- nX t3\'XovnX t0£l lo enoXtsswp
jYltnooas ta& j^eXwrH ,1 Ixs^l lo enrtfingXa QnXunsg ©rit i£»cf ioerfo
19x1 tjjorftxw Yi9vXX»t aAi ietl£ JbeiatXis xXX^Xlatjem afos£fa «at b£W
atoerfo gaXyn^^ ©xf* bjbw ioarfo edt, tsdt ,Jtmiol tii/oo eXxIT .Y*Xioriti/£
isr'tsrf^' ot s.-: aoXts9x;p sdi aoqv sBjsq ton bib iud ,Y9Xwi3H .aiM lo
I
it was materially altered without her authority after its del-
ivery. And in connection with this phase of the case, the
Supreme Court holds the law to be aa follows!
"Where a person signs a negotiable instrument which
ia imcomplete because the amount is left nl£,nk z.vA delivers
it for use, the custodi;-n of the p'cxper has implied author-
ity to fill in the amount. Merritt v. Poyden & Son 191 111,
136. Accordingly, when the cushier of the Ainsworth State
Bank, at the direction of Willian- C. Hrwley, wrote into
the paper bearing Mrs. Hawley^s name .the amount of $1079,48,
the paper became her genuine check for that amount, as was
found by the Appellate Court. It was not pe.id, but after
its disliOnor the payese caused the amount to be changed to
$1059.74. This made another and different check. There is
no finding th:-.t this change was authorized by Mrs. Hawley
or thut this check was her genuine check. When she gave her
check in blank she g'.ve the custodian imnlied ^.u^-hority to
perfect the check by filling the blank. There is no evid-
ence of any other au*hority than that implied by law. Haw-
ley perfected the check by causin?^ the blank to be filled.
This was in accordance with his implied authority an3 Mrs.
Hawley became bound by the check. Ke was not, however,
authorized to bind her by ixnother check. He hai made the
check which he v/?.3 authorized to make, and he could not make
another without further authority.
Counsel for the defendant in error Eefer to cases hold-
ing that the holder of a negotiable instrument iniorsed in
blank may correct the contract \vhich he has written : 'ove
a blank indorsement, even as late as the trial. It is true
that a blank indorsement on a promissory note which has been
filled up to sta.te the contract incorrectly may be corrected
so as to stc.te the contract correctly, but in the present
case the blank was filled in accordance with the authority
BKxkiHxiix of the agent and bec^.me by that act binding on his
principal, as the Appellate Court has found. He could not
■vithout other s.uthority bind her by another check."
The finding of fact made by this court concerning the
genuineness of the signature of Mrs. Hawley, and the conclusions
drawn from the evidence in that regard are not disturbed by the
decision of the Supreme Court, and on reconsideration of the case
our conclusion remains the same on that question. 7?e h ve care-
fully examined the record, but find no evidence of authority 'or the
alteration of the check after it had been filled out, and presented
to appellant for payment. An effort was made by the appellant on
the trial to show authority by Mrs. Hawley to her husband, by attempt-
ing to prove a conversation, which it was claimed Mrs. Hawley had
with her husband 4t the time he claims, he cilled his wife's attention
to appellant's lettey, notifying her of the refusal to pay the check
-3-
"let ati. le'
iijsliai'jsm a£W i-i
-ion
«8^»oTOI:5. Id
-tiV9 on
.3tM ^fT'' v^tto:
srft
9i'?:jr ton bluo^
"tlod 898 30 o.t isiaa
at beaiotat ■^ze-rur'^
SUt^ Bt ft
nsacf oxjrf rfoidw Bio a v
ill ao
ton L
lOTT
8 r
Oil t-
sxjtoxeulorrf
toJaeitiq tin
no tajzliscr
_ 4
r ':/; Y^ .T :k . rr;
rioxirrs^tta e'sllw aii ^y^x i
Si;.
• sialqfisoorfti ei
UO Qlit ,93J-f to* d-i
9ri;t ni IIl^ o* >{*1
aud- ftSi^w .YX^iicii'-'iO'voA .SSI
i'" "^0 floitostii: 9.^* t^ ,in^
.'jjnsg lad era^-o^cf tsqjsq srit
,ti0oD s&BllBqoA. f,d& Y^ tfli/o^
ru-rC 2:ie\jfiq &;;':? T:o:io:l8iiJ a:M
t;- Qt£m airiT .:^?. 63011^
.- eirfJ :t-;rl;t j^attat'i on
aajLi-flsg 13^ a.ctv :fo3rrc sirfi- ^srit ao
^ini-CIi"^ ^jcf 3fo9io arit *09!ti9q
- "■■tirjQrf+jjr- ^9rf,to ynfi ^0 oona
■ Si'-d- Jb3:}"09^T9q \eL
hioooB at aan eiilT
;c' iiufocf 9C!j£03cf YQ-CwsH
lerl Laid oi t^stiodtUB
iiui'XOiltifis B'sw sd rioxxfw ^osrio
■1+0£ isrij-Tifl tuocittit lad&oajj
' f9l:si) 9f-3- To^ l^aauoD
:. £ "io i9t£ori @iit fjiat -Qat
i-iJitoo erf:? tosiioo ^{i3ffl ^In^Id
" - rrev* , ■trT«m°oiotnl~in.v-Ic' .n
a o* qir fceXIit
" 3tJ-iioo ;?rfc!" d*-^te oJ a.a oa
X^XHiifXHiS
jl^qionitq
-•■rito Juoff^tiv.'
iitxTll srfT-
rgle ssrf+ lo essnsniwflsg
■■:t fflOT^: awBit
jjO &i'Ci;iqi;-. -^ noiaioai
■-■,^a 9ri* ani.6ins*r .loxaulcnoo ixfo
.1 i^aiz tucf ^t-cooet arft laatx^xs x^^"^
' Jiosrlo ©ff* ^o aot&^TsilJi
tro'izo xiA . Jnd«Y5q rol i-a3£LBqq£ oi
•id ^ttrod&OB woria o* Lstrt sd&
(loit^et^vaoc & svoiq oi gni
"J. -i. ;.i' tjiiS- ©fit ** Jbnacfetfri loif £[:fiw
-c-
on account of the amount inserted therein being in excess of the
deposit. The trial court refused to allow the husband to test-
ify to this conversation, and error is assigned on this rulin? of
the court. We are of opinion that the conversation was not ad-
missible as eviience, and there was no error in this ruling of the
court. Hahlstedt v. Ideal Lighting Co. 271 111. 154; Monaghan v.
Green 285 111. 333; Shreffler v. Chsse 24- 111. 395. The evidence
of a material alteration of the check in question is clear anl not
fisputed; payment of the chect by the appell:^.nt ws.s not available
as a defense to the action, unless authority to make the alteration
was shown. No authority having been proven it follows, that the
verdict and judgment is right; and it ia affirmed.
Judgment affirmed*
-4p
•xuoo lir-ilJ arfT .Jiaoqs
-. _ ,. . ..^ifsartevaoo ^^-''f -^zrf nciriiqo "50 ei^ aW .ifiixoo er.
riif "^r, aailjjf p rr::l l-.I loiie :i ru- ,30iisiiva 8£ sIdiaeJ
.. ...i-gsaoV i _ , .11 ITS .oO -;ajt:!:^-iJ i.39x^I .v ^t9iaLcljM . .tiuc
aoaetlv-9 sxfT .aee .III • ramsiriS jscs .1X1 362 ctssi
ton Tt-" -ri-elcj si r:c,ij:^.eu'i nx ^osrio edt io .fioxtiia^I.^ Lciiscfsm 5 1
edt :f,-rrt ,pwoiIo'i tl i^6v::Tc- .Tsscf gnJtv^ri >{d'liorftii£ oK .nworfa a£
..'-•> r jtdsii ai ^asm^tx/j; tn£ iotLia
STATE OF ILLINOIS, (
SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^- I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court.
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
i.' *
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT
. ^
/S^lih
Begun and held B,t Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fiftJl day of October,
\
in the year ot^ our Lord one thousand nine/hundred and
twenty, within\and for the Second Distrjfct of the State cf
Illinois: Y
Present--The Hon. DORflANCE DIBELL, Pres /ding Jus t i ce .
Hon. JOHN\m. NIEHAUS, Jus /ice
Hon. OSCAR \E. HEARD, Jus/ice
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk.
CURT S. AYER^, Sherif
2i9l.iV. 636
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wi t :
Gen. No» 6742 « Agenda 48.
Herbert Hammond,
Appellant.
V8 ' Appeal from Kane.
J. W. MacDonald,
Appellee.
3l9l-^-«^^
Nlehaus.,. J»
In this case the appellant, Herbert Hammond,
brought auit in assumpsit against J. W. MacDonald in the
circuit court of Kane county. The suit is to recover tl750.00
olaimei to be due on a promisory note which the appellee had
gi\»en to the Union Agency Company, a corporation, in payment
of 100 shares of capital stock of that company. The appellant
filei an affidavit of claim with his declaration, claiming
the amount due to be tl552.90; and it was afterward stipulated
by the parties, that there was due on the faceoof the note, and
according to the averments of the affidavit anl claim, the a-
mount mentioned. An affidavit of meritorious defense was filed
by the appellee with his pleas, which alleged that the note in
question hai been obtained from him by means of fraud and false
representations; and that the -^ppellisnt hal notice of that fact
before he purchased the note in question. There was a trial by
jury on the issues involvel, which resulted in a veriict and
judgment in favor of the appellee and this appeal is prosecuted
frorr; the juigment.
Appellant contends for a reversal of the juigment on
several grounds, namely, that the trial court adrcittsi incomi'jetent
evidence fior the appellee; and that upon the eviiencs adtritted,
■tne court should have directed a verdict for the appellant. We
.©n^rj moil l£9qqA ' av
eis
.ssIIaqqA
,£iI^-noaoj3M .W .L
,a.JJ'Jiia.-t"^
srfj rii: fclysnoQQji^I .1i7 ,1, &Bai£-g£ flsqausas nx j-xjjb *rfguoacf
OO.OSVI^ 19V0091 o;^ ai d-xx/a sriT .'{d-nwoo sn^X 'lo cfrtifoo ttuotto
cjsrf geXIsqq^ sri* rfoiri^: ed'orr vjaoaxmoiq js no sjjI ecf ot lenii^Xo
.tfieflrf^c; rri ^noxj-^ttoqioo £ «y^'^Q''«0''^ YortsgA noinU edt ot a^ttl-g
tasLxQqqj" sriT .Tfrinqmoo d-i>rid' lo ioocfe X^tiqjso 'to eeijsrfe 001 lo
Lsti'Iiiqi+e fcijsv.'iad'x^ ser &t biiB ;06»se5X| so ot 9sjt ^rwoms edi
t'n* i&ioa sdi *oo30£l arid- xjo svL q£.v 3teci& t^idt ^Bel&zsq 9dt ^6
-'fi 9rft «ffiiJsXo tnj3 txvjetm^ erf* lo ad-neraisvj^ eclt ot gnxiiooor-
teXxl 8JSW seaalet ai/oiio.+ xT9rfi lo :^iv£i)illJS nA .Lsnoid-nera j-xK/om
nl a^oxi 8rfJ &'Bd& bs'gell.si rioixlw ,ei2sXq airi d&lrf oeXI©qq£ exf* ^jd
©bX^I tnjs l5i/;-:il lo efuedas ^cf ffllrf moil f29nx£*o'o nsscf tjsrf nolJ-seup
d-o£l *.srf# lo soxrfon tsd *j3»XIsqq.. .'& Las [Bnoi&£iaGBerq9z
^d l&li^ Ji g^w ©TsrfT .noitssup al scfon sdt fcee^rloru/q sri siolecf
tnjB *oli:T9V e ni baiLuset doxxfw ,£svXovni aeuael snd^ no YH/(;
fc'jtuo^aoiq al Xjsaqqjs eiric* Jbas asXIaqqj. sri* lo Tovisl nx d-ngmgixfi;
► i-namgii/i; ed& raoil
no 'n9fcsti.r(; sffd* lo Xj3bt:9V9*i ^ ttol afcneJ-noo d-n^XI sqqA
ta&f&qmoont isttlmba truoo Isltt edt *£ri;f .yXsm.oir .ebm/cxg l£T9V9e
,fc9**iiTTf-.js sonstivs erf* noqxj ^jsrf* has -esXXsqqfi Qd& toS aoneiivs
sW ..^n-XIsqq^ sr-i" lol .toxtiav & tstoaixl: ©v^-rf fcXuoris *ii/oo an*
are of opinion that the court properly refused to direct a verdict
in the state of the evidence at the close of the case. It is clear,
however, that there was evidence admitted, which should have been
excluded.^ The account books of the Union Agency Company were
admitted in evidence, without competent preliminary proof, of their
correctness, or authenticity; nor does the record contain any com-
petent proof to show, that the books were correct or made in the
regular course of the business of the Union Agency "Sompany; or
that they contain a tone record of the business transatione of the
company. The only proof contained in the cecord in that regard
is hearsay evidence; and consists of statements testified to her the*
witness Harvey Gunsel who was also allowed to state an indictment
had been procured against the company as a result of his investigation*
The evidence which was improperly admitted, was clearly judicial to
the rights of appellant. A question is raised by the appellee con-
cerning the bill of exceptions, namely, that Exhibits 1 t© 9 inclus-
ive were not in the bill of exceptions when the same was presented
to the trial judge on September 32, 1S19. It appears however that
these exhibits were incorporated into the bill of exceptions before
it was signed and sealed by the judge nunc pro tunc on Jfetch 3, 1930«
This was sufficient to make the exhibits a part of the record. Madden
V. City of Chicago 383 111. 165. For the reasons stated the judgment
is reversed and the cause remanded.
I
toibiev £ d-osiifc ocf tsesjlei Y-C^sqoTq ;fiJJOO sift txidi- notatqo 1o si
^ts^lo at s-1 .98J50 srf* "o esolc srid- fjs sonsLxvs srf;}- lo 9t£tf-8 srff n
nserf - oris ffolrfw ,i)9d'timt£ aonstiv© sb?-' 9T3rf:f &sdt «i9vewo
^iS7! YnisgrnoO \;on9sA noxnU Qd& 1o aiooc .::auooo^ sriT ^hstuLox
ixsrft !to t^tooiq Yi^nimxISTq i"a*cfeqinoo :t-i;orftxw ^aonstivs ni be&&lmb
-moo Y-'i-s nlBJnoo iiioosi arit asoi: ion j^(d-ioltrf3rid'0J3 10 ^eaantosixo
srf* nx stvG.T! 10 tosiioc sisw aafoocf erit d-^ri* t-^ode ot looiq &nets
10 jYn-^^I'^''^3' ^onsgA noinU srf* !to eesnieud erii to seiuoo usXi/gs
©rfj- 1:0 8nox:t8en>3icf EesnieucT 3rft J.o trocez saoi s alA&aoo ^&dt t^
tis^Bi &sdf at tiooao srf.t ni fcsnxBd-rroo ^ooiq -^flno sriT .Yn^qmo
4 9rf+ lari ot bet'it&se& s&nemsfsfe lo atslanoo has (scnafciva vsetseA a
(tnamtoifcnx xi^ e^sd-e ot £)swoIX£ oalos e^sw orfw IsBnisD -^evisii^ essaj-jt
.noi*.e5iteevfli 9in' '5o *Ijjp91 ^ bj2 ^rtx^qmoc sdt janx^s ^^Tx;oo1q need -£^js
o& l£totbul xltsaLo e£v ^bet&tmbB >cXi9qoiqpnl 8£w rfoxrfw songLivg 9ri
-noo 99lL9qqs sifcf vfd .tsel-ei al nol;tB9x;p A . :frr£li8qq>e lo ajrigii arf
-Si/Icnl e 9:t I a*i':fldx3 &^d& ^-^Ismaa »8rfoxd-q9ox© lo Illd grf* gnlnia
fcatrreaeiq sjsw stfiBa erf* nsrfw enoxtqecxa ^0 Hid sd& nt ton siew ©v
tsdf lavswod auseqq^ *I .5161 ,££ ledmatqsa no 9g£)J-rc X,fili* edt
STO'Jsd anoitqeoxe 5c Hid srft o*ni fc9*£ToqToonx 9T9w a;tidirfx8 eeerf
.OSGI ,£ ilolsM no oaut oiq ocrua s-gbu^ sif* yd tsl^sa Jbne Lafrgia Sisw rf-
nel^fceM .tiooai erit !to tisq js eoidirfxs sriit 931.5m o* j£t©ioi^:lx/B sjew aid'
d-namstxjr srf* i)9;tjsie anoa^ai arid- lo''! .531 .III S8S o^jsoidO lo x^-^O^**'
. b^bttsmsi B6US0 9d& bn^^ fcasiavei e.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, | ,
SECOND DISTRICT.. f ^''- I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court,
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.
Clsrk of the Appellate Court.
1^ i^^ '^ru-v
o
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the f/fth day of October,
in the yearlof our Lord one thousand lyne hundred and
twenty, within and for the Second Di/triet of the State cf
111 inois :
Present--The Hon. ^^DORRANCE DIBELL, p/es iding Jus t i ce ,
\ J
Hon. ^OHN M. NIEHAUS , ^us t i ce
Hon. 0§CAR E. HEARD , /Jus t i ce
s
ARTHUR %. SNOW, Cl^k
CURT S. kYERS, Shferiff
219I.A. 637
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit :
Gen. No. 6788
Rcbert Lunlstrum,
ioing business as
Sterling Floral Company,
Appellee
V8 Appeal from City Court
City of Sterling.
Illinois Northern
Utilities Company
Appellant
219I.^.637
Niehaus, J.
This case wi^s before us at a previous term
on appeal, and the first judgment recovered by the appellee
Robert Lundstrum against the appellant Illinois Northern Utilities
Company, was reversed, and the cause remanded for another triai.
Lundstrijun v. Illinois Northern Utilities Co. 111. App.
The facts now presented by the record are substantially
the same as recited in the previous opinion; Robert Lundstrum
the appellee, owned a greenhouse in the city of Sterling; and the
appellant o\vned an! operated a gas plant in th: t city; one of its
pipes or mains was located in the street adjacent to his greenhouse .
In January 1917 some of the plants which appellee was raising in the
geeenhouse appeared to be stunted and some died, Abou-i- January 4th
following, the appellee concluded that the trouble was from es-
caping gas, and reported the master to the appellant; and it sent,
out men to look for leaks in its mains. One ws found about 50 feet
from appellee's building, and was thereupon fixed. This action was
bought to recover for the unjury caused to appellee's plants, and
the declaration charged that the defendant carele9sly and neglig-
ently permitted its gas mains at the place indicated to get into
a defective condition, permitting gas to escape, and averring that
the ground became frozen and covered with ice so that the gas found
-1-
88T8 .oM .nsO
esllsq --
te
JiiroO Y*JcO moil I^-sqqA ^^
\{n£qfnoD sai^ilxJ-U
j-fisIIaqqA
.L ,81/5il9iH
«:t9* auoiveiq ^ ts bis aio^^ed a.ew 98^0 aMT
99Xl9qqB 9rit Yrf b9t9vooei Jnemsti/C :^aan ?ri* tn.. ^X^s^q^ no
esitxIx^U nierfcf.cW exorrxlll tfl^IIeqa^ eri:f ^ranx.gB mx;Ttafcxu;J ^.sdoH
,in-r: i^rf^on^ ao^ i9i>n^m9T aax/^o ^di boB .tsaisvsa e.-w ,Y«^qffloO
J .qO asitxIld-U nTsrftioM aionilll .v Bu;i:fefcnuJ
YlX^l*n.s*adi;8 ei^ b^ooai srf* Ycf h^insBSiq. won a:^o£l sdT
axutr^afcnxrJ *tedoH jnoinxqo axroiveaq eri* nl t9*xo9T a^ em^a ad* .
3rit LnB tsniXrts^P -o v-c ^ '+ ax eai/orfnssis i^ 1^9nv;o ^aelieqq^ 9ri:f
8*i Ito eno i^tlz 3 -^ ta^^^sqo tn^ ban^o ^n^IIsqqi^
. seuorineeis b^^ o* tn.o.ibs ^eer^e en^ nx i.e. .ool a.w ani^ .o aeqxq
erft ni gfllaip.-x a^w eslleqq^ rioixlw atelq srit lo emoa ^121 ^-xsvasX, nl
rit^ YTx-iTfl^L ti/odA .beib amoa Ln^ i^aJnx/ta ad o* bea^eqqa 9auorin99»3
-ee motl sbw ^Iduo-i* srf* t^Hd" fcs^^x/Ionoo sellaqq^ edi ,sniwolXol
,Jnee *i En^ t^n^sXIaqq^ sri* o:^ ae.t^^ra arit ba^toqai tn^ .a^g gniq^o
tes^ 05 *x/odr. fcnno^ 8..w enO .eaism atfi ni a^I^aX 'lot :fooX o:t nam *x;o
e^-w noxto^ alriT .Jbsxi^ noqx;9^ail;f asy, bas .■gatbliud e'oaXXeqq^ mo:c^
l,n- -^JriBXq a'aeXXaqq^ ot t'aaxi^o Ya^QXu; sd:^ -lol 'xsvooea ocf triauod
-3iX39a ^nr> yXaaeXe:riso JnaLns^efc aif^^ ■ aS-^^rfo aoU^r^loet edt
oint tes ot bstr.ctbal so^Xq arit ^^ anx .-> a.3 8*i Lecr;Mm.eq xl^ne
,..t 3al.— .n. ,eq.oae o. a.3 ,nX.nn..eq ,noi.itnoo -^^-^^^^
. ,., ,.rf. o. eox rl.lw t-e.^voo la. a..o.'. amaoad touoas erf.
an underground ch^^nnel from the place of the le3.k to the green
house; anl there arose to the surf ce, destroying some plants
and injuring others. The case was reversed principally on
the ground thctt there was no evidence of negligence, the appel-
lee hi-ving tried his case upon the assumption that the doctrine
or res ipsa loquitor applied; and offered no proof to show the
negligence charged. The case has been tried again in the court
below without a jury; and there was a fin.iing and judgment for
the appellee for the sum of $3130,00 anl this appe?.l is pro-
secuted from the judgment.
It is now contended that the judgment should be re-
versed because the charge of negligence made by the appellee in
his declaration is not sustained by the evidence; also that
incompetent testimony was introducei over the objection of ap-
pellant. The evllence tends to show, that there was a gas
leakage froT. appellant's main, which had been laid in the street, .
in front of appellee's premises at a point where a service pipe has
been joined and attached to the gas main. Appellant^s a^.in w?.s 1-^id
28 inches below the surface of the street] ani not below the frost
lin; anl unier these circumstances the frost action would be like-
ly to effect the joints, which were not expansion joints. The ev-
idence tends to show that the frost >^ction on the soft metal of the
joint in question probably loosened it, ani caused the leak.
Furthermore that proper construction, required a block of -vood or s^one
to be pl?.ced under the main at the joint to hold it firmly, ani to
prevent settling, and to minimize the Effect of the freezing and
thawing of the earth, around the joint and main, and the expansion
anl contraction resulting therefrom. It also appears from the ev-
iedenoe that in 1916, which was the year previous to the time of the
injury, that there was a sulden increase in the amount of lose of
-3-
neaag srfJ oo ^AaeL f^di "io ac^i oil lann-^rio tauoi-g-ietasj a£.
B^^nslq sraoB ■gnxyotiast ^so.-.t'ms srit o^ eaoTj3 ersdt LaB laauod
no YJ^J^<s9-£oniTq tsartsvsT: sjew esfo srfT .eisriio •gairu'^ni fcrus
-l8qq£ exit ,9onesiIgeri ^o sonstiva on a.6w saadt tisrfj JDiXucTg exit
8niTtoofc 9rf* trd* noicfqiTJuaa^ arft noqi-f ssjso aid teiii& gniv^rl esX
Slid- worfa o* loorrq oa teisllo ta£ jtailqq^ io;J-ix;poI ^saqi eei lo
j'-ruoc 9rfJ nx rrijBSJS battt need esrf aejsc sdT .csgi^rio aoneaiigan
TO^ frr^rrrtjJi; f;a£ Snllni^t £ a^w sisrit ba^ iX'^t - ti/orfcTiw wolecf
alrit fcnjs 00.05ISI lo nu;a 9rf# lol ssXIsqqo^ edt
.iciBorgtul srlt koiI tatucse
-81 9cf tli/orfa tnsmgijjJi; sift t^rft ijstsns.+ noo v/oa sx +1
rrx 9sll9qq£ orit vd si3-Gm gonagilgaii lo egi^rio exit sax/aosd beaisv
tr.d& oBlB iQoaQbtvs edt y;d LBaijctBue ton ex aoitsinnLoeL Bid
-qjE to aoitosfrfo srft tcsvo tsoi/ijoitiix aiVfi "iaomlSBot taateq.TEooni
8^3 s e£w 9i9rft tj5£ft tWO£:e ct etnst oonstive edi .tasIXeq
,t9»ita Sift nJt i)ij?I nesd Jb£fl doidn ,nx.sra a •'trx^IIsqq^ iroi^ sgriael
end 9qiq 9oivi9e js aierfw tnioq ^ t^a esexmsTq a'eelleqq^ lo tnoil ai
tl'L asm ai^im s^titfillsqqA .nisar es-g grit ot tarfci5tt£ tni^ fcanxOQ nascf
teoil erit woXsd ton has [:}'^'er&B erit lo sojsItiib 9rit woXed esrfoni 8S
-sjtXX 6d JbXi/ow noito.e taoTa .on^taniwoilo aaer^t letau Lns ;niX.
-ve ©riT .etnxoi; noien^qx© ton gisw riolxlw tatnxoj; srit toslla o**" X*^ I
Bdt lo X^tem tloa erit no noxto/; teoil erit terit worfa ot atxist eonsLA"^
.:{soX 9rft b&Buso tas ,ti fisnoeooX ^Xd^cfortq aoxtaex/p nl tnxot
©no-'e 10 fcoo^' to :^ooXcf e teilup^r ,no.ctojJitenoo isqoiq tj^rft sioraierit'iu'H"
ot tn ,\ilfc;'i/'. tX I)Xori ot" tniOQ 9dt tjs nianr erit letm; i^sosXq ©d ot
bus snis99il erit lo toelli srit ssimxnim ot Las^ ^^ail'ttee tngvaiq
CiOieaBqxB erit Xins tflXjBin bas txiXot srit bauoia ,ritTX'9 srit lo gniw^rit
-vs ©rit ffiOTl .eifi9qq£ c T '::3rit snitXirasa noXtcsstnoo bas
erit '-^o emit srit ot ejjoiv&r.:; zz::x -::;J- ajr-w rioXriw ,8XGX at tsrit ©onsXiaX
lo aaoX lo tnuor?TJs srit -" -- ---rri nettle £ - - -"isdi t^rit «:ctri;(;nx
gas from the mains, which indecatel that thee might be a leak in
the maina; and the extent of the iisooloraticn of the soil next
to the leakage also inlicated, thatt the leak which was found,
must have existed for a lon^ time previous to the month of Jan-
uary 1917 when the in>ury was caused. In this stat? of the evid-
ence the court was justified in concluding , that the appellant
has sufficient notice to put it upon inquiry concerning leakage;
and that when the matter of the sudden increase of the amount of
gas lost from its m^ains cam.e to its attention, in the exercise of
reasonable care, the appellant should have made an inspection of its
mains in the customary way to discover leaks; and that it could
have done so before the ground became frozen. It is a reasonable
inference from the evidence, that if such inspection has been made
in the usual and ordinary way, the leak would have been discovered
and the iniury thereby prevented. We are of opinion, that there is
a sufficient basis in the evidence for the finding of the court on
the question of negligence. It is contended, that the court erred
in allowing the appellee who was a witness in his own behalf, to
answer over appellant's ocjection, questions concerning the am.ount
of his damages, be'cause, it is insisted that the questions contains
some elements which are not competent to be considered on the question
of damages, in addition to the elements in the question which are
proper to be considered. It is a sufficient answer to this con-
tention, that the objection which was made to the question on
the trial, was not on this ground; the elements now claimed by
councel to be improperly in the question, whould have been pointed
out to the trial court, so as to give the trial court an ooportunity
to rule on the objection and to give appellee and opportunity to
amend his question leaving out the objectionable elements in the
case the objection were sustained/ Now having made the objection
-3-
nx :<fj39l £ 9cf 3-ilg irn asrlJ- t.6di tet^^oet ai xiciriw .anijsni edt moil ajsg
d-xsn 1x06 i .:oxt-6iolooa.£i sri:' lo cfasiJ-xs adt ta£ [eai^m srft
-n^L ^0 ritxioffl 9/1* o* asjolvsiq smli -gaol s io1 be&atxQ avM Jaura
-I-xvs 9rf;t lO gf£j8 siif:f nl .tsau^o a^w x'wlal 9x1* ngriw 7X61 ^i£u
*fl.ell9qqjs 9rf* *£rfi- , gniiulonoo ni iseliXJau-r sjst/ v+ijjoo srI* gone
J9^s3fs9l ^nxnisonoo y'I-^^P^J^ aoqis *x d-uq o* 9oi*on jrraiojtlljja ajsrf
1:0 *fXJJom£ 8ri.t J.o sa^gaonx asttua sdt lo i9t*jsm 9/1* nexfw *^£f* fcrijs
to 98loT9X8 sff* n2 ,noXv+n9**£ 2*x 0* s.tijso anxjBm a*x boiI *8oI a^g
etx ^o rroi*o9qanx rrjs gLsm 9V£rf i^Iworla tn^LLeaqs sri* »9a^o 9ld£noa£9i
iluoo cM *j3n'd- fcxijs jajT^gl isvooaxt o* y^w '^•i£ino*3JJo 9/1* ni anx£m
9lcf£noe£9ti; ^ ax *I .ngscrl gm^oad tasjoi-g edi- 910-90 oa gnot svjsrf
gtjsnr nggcf a^xf nox*o9qeni dcua J.i tsdt ,8on9tlv9 gn'* moil gongiglnl
tsisvooalt n99cf 9Vi:/f iljjov/ jfjsgl sxf* ^^bw \{Tjsni:fcio tn£ Xauai; 9/1* nx
ax gtg/f* *j3r[* .noinlqo lo 9ijs gW .Jb9*ngv9Tq ^cfgigxl* ^f1i;(;^x 8x1* Laa
no *Tuoo 9/f* lo ■gdttni'x 9rf* lol 8on9£)iv9 sxf* nl aiajsd *nolomiJa £
t97i9 *iuoo 9rf* *j3/i* ,l;8i3n9*noo ai *I .aoirggxlggn lo nox*a9xfp gxf*
0+ jllB/fgrf xrwo axrf nl aa9n*xw js 3jsw oxfw sgllgqq^ 9x1* gnlwolljs nl
tnuo^.-e 9xf* gnxHTsonoo 8nox*s90p tXtoi*o9Q:fo 8**n£lX9qq£ i9vo T9wan£
8al,5*noo 9nox*agi;p grf* *-srf* £9*exenx ai *i .gausogo' ,39g£ai£^ aixf lo
rroi*a9Jjp srf* no tgigtxanoo scT o* tn9*9qmoo *on sis rfoi/fw e*ngin9Xg giaos
91B doirfw nox*a8x;p grf* ai a*n9m9Xe s/f* o* nox*Xi3Jb£ ni ^agg^must lo
-rroo airf* o* isviBn£ *n9loxllx;a £ ax *I .tgiglXanoo gcf o* igqoTq
no noi*89np srf* o* gfc^m a^w rfoxrfw noltosldo g/f* *£xf* ,nox*ng*
Ycf XsmljsXo won eJngmgXg 9xf* iLnuor-g sxcl* no *on asit ^l^itt 9ri*
£9*nxoq ngscf gV'^xf tXworfw ,nox*asijp 9/1* nx Y-i^^s^Joiqmx 9d o* Xgonuoo
r+ fni;*ioqqo n^ *t.uoo Xsii* 9xf* 9vxg o* bjs oe ,*ixf00 Ijntit 9/f* o* *0O
0* v*lrixr*rroqqo tn-B ggXXgqqjs 9Vi^ o* tnjs nox*-09{;cfo 9/1* no gXxJi o*
eri-^ ni 8*n9m9X9 9Xcfjsnol*o9(;cfo 9/f* tuo ■§.atv£Ql aoitaeup aid Instas
noi*o9j;-o ^^^ ^^^^ -pntvsd woH \fc9ni:£*aija 9T9w noX*o9(.cfo g/f* ga^o
in the court below, it cannot now be consiiered c.,s a ground for
reversal. We are of opinion, thc.t the profif concerning the carn-
ages which the record discloses is substantially within the lim-
ItationB fixed by this court in the previous opinion, ani is leg^
ally sufficient to sustain the amount found by the court. The
record does not disclose any reversible error, and the judgment
is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
-4-
TO*!: bauofg - - eiisnoo 9cf re- toxinjeo ti twolao oIjl/oo arfcf ni
-ffijafc add- gni.Ti OiTTc ISoiq srf* icxniqo lo eijs ©W .i^a-xavei
-mil 9£ft nir; ;fadi/B si ssaoIoexL Liooai &dt rfolriw asgj:
-gel 8i fcn- iqo ai/oivsaq erfd- at tiuoo aid* y<^ feoxi!t BnoltB&l
sn'T . .ttuoo Off* Ycf tasjol tnsjom^ srirf- £rxjs*ai/a o* +rrpioil^8 xlL£
iasm-gtul srf* tiiis ,aoats elcfisTsvsi ijn^ seoXoai. aoij Lxocez
,bejnii^*c;3 Qtolatedt ei
>9!iiii^l3 taeoigbisL
STATE OF ILLINOIS, I
SECOND DISTRICT. I ^'^^ I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hcx-eunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
(-^^ ><;
6
^^ii' ■:
0'yliV\j\
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and
twenty, within and for the Second District of the State of
111 inoi s :
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justice,
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk.
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. 2 1 9 X»A« O O «
BE I I REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on October
12, 1920, the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wi t :
t
^1/
u^
'A
Gen. No. 6808.
Ethel
G.
Patt
vs.
ison
>
Appe
•
llant.
/Bo«gW
L&€
Pc.tt
ison,
•
JO AO^C
a^
Appe
llee.
Niehf;U8,
J.
Appeal fro-r CaTroll.
219I.A. 637
The f^cts in this caee appe?.r from the aver-
ments in the pleadings and the evidence. The appellant Ethel ^.
Pattioon obtained a decree for divorce aglinat the aopellee
Doughlc.8 Patlison at the November Term ISll in the circuit court
of Carroll county; anl in the decree there is a provision -or
alimony based upon the agreement of the parties, which required
the appellee to pay the appellant for her su-^r^ort ani the surrort
of the minor child of the parties, Nancy, the sum of $150. CC mon-
thly. After the entry of the decree, appellant with Nancy moved
to California anl -took up a residence there. The appellee com-
plied with the terms of the decree for alimony until the matters
:.roee, which are involved in this controversy. After removing
to Calif orni?., the appellant put Nancy into a convent school 'or
girls at San Rafael, Calif ornai, an institution ccnlucted by the
catholic sisters of Dominician order; and Nancy remained at this
school for several years; and was still in the school in the year
19J8, when the appellant came to the conclusion that Nancy was
developing a desire to become a nun, which she thouc-ht came from
the religious influence surrounding her. She felt th-.t this desire
should be checked, but also concluded, that she iii not have suf-
ficient influence over her da.ughter to check it, ani there'-ore
called upon the appellee for his agsietance in the mat+er. Her
-1-
.S9i:sqqA ^Jii|»Hll
7Sa .A.IGxg
-tsvjs <5ri* moil T.i?©qq£ ss-so ai 'o vl 3xlT
rf,ta tn cnoiixve arft tns 8gnif)js9Xq srl:)' ni a-J-fisrn
e-IIsqcs srft tertiia^ aoiovlfc toI seioai ^ i;9ni^*cfo noaltt^'i
triroo * tcrotio srf* ni IXSX njisT TSCfmovoM sri^- d-js noaitt^*? e-^IriguoQ
10': aoieiv ' fri fcnc (\'tawoo IIo:c%sO ^0
tsTijjpsT rfoiriw 4.e9li-i-sq srf* lo ^nsnJsstSJB eAf noqij fcsa.ocf Yflomil£
tioarrx/B 9d& ta^ troqr.ua tsi. . t 99ll9qqu3 srfjf
-noffl 00. 031 1 lo rni/B ari* ,von.sK :q sift to tlirfo 'xoninr 9i(* lo
fcsvonr Y-neH 'tiw Ja^IIeq'q^ ,99Toc y*^*^© ©ri* TSd'^A .Ylxl;t
-fcoo ssIIsqqjB erfT .3T9n'd" goaQbiesi: : qx/ :ioo* £n^ -slmollI-sO 0*
Bt9tdrjs/r 9rf:f' Ix.tnu ^{nomJ:X.s toI ssaosL 9rit 1:0 aaiiet 8;iJ d&iv fcgJtXq
"^atvosti^n Ts^f'+A ."{at^voi&no-: ^vXovnx 6iJ3 ifoXriw ,9901^3
lol Xoorfoe ^nrsvrxoo :; otni ^oajsTl Suq l-n-sXXaqq^ silr^ ,,iim.o!l:iX£0 o;f
£r ^^oi/txioo notJt/txd-eni: to'iiX.sO ,X9£^fiH n^g *5 aXiXg
Pi .ai^ingT Y^nsU tas [labio n^sioxnimoG ^o aretB tsi ciXorfcfao
iJ59if 9iiJ nx I'oorfoa 9:1* nx IXiJ*^ .^ Lsre^s^ 10* Xooxloa
sj?w YonjsK tiisrfd" noiexiXonoo 9ri* o* sinao JnjsXXsqqjs eiit asdv «8X6X
t 9rfe rioiriw .nun £ aiaoogtf o* sixsgjc s. 5nXqoX9V9Jb
. .iltnxroTTue sonsixl^ai ex/oxgiXga srf*
-'tx/8 sv.'Bff j-on til riJ ,i.atx;Xonoo oeXjj ti/c' ,t33[p3rfo 9d fcXx/oria
eTo':9T9/^t taii «^i ioarfo od- latiii^sib isxf isvo songuXtni tngioil
TsH .«»:*J^BJ 9rf* xil son^.+ai:8RJS exxl to^ 99Xl9qqj: srf?- rroqxx i-aXX£0
-X-
viev/s on this subject at that tine were particularly state! in
a letter which she wrote to the appellee on June 14th, 1916'
and which is as follows:
DQjiT Douglas:
I would not write to you
now if I did not so earnestly desire what will be best
for Nancy's welfare and I hope you will read this
letter in the spirit I write it, with no other thought
except for that will be best for Nancy and whatever
you decide I shall try to feel will work out for her
happiness*
In the first place I wan+ to say someti^intp
in regurd to my relations with Nancy. I know now,
in looking back, I have never given N?,ncy the tender
mother love which a child h?.s the right to expect ^nd
wliich most chilired get. phe was never first with me.
I hs.ve been absolutely and utterly selfish all
of my life I can remember ai-out, and it has only been
la-^ely I h..vre begun to realize understandingly what a
useless wasted life I have led.
When I put Nancy in the convent T shirked
the responsibility of trying to cure myself with un-
failing love her tendencies towards dishonesty and
untruthfulness.
It is true I expected to live with her e- "ter
her year in the convent, but by that time, she had
grown to love the peace she found there ani which had
never been with rae in my asaociation with any one, and
she refused to live with me, saying she would write to
you to go under supervision if I did not allow her to
go back. Each succeeding year, even when she came
back fro'n Frpeport she has held this same thre-.t over
me, and I, (thinking I was too sick and wretched to
v/ork, ani too Irzy to ecirn my own living in the only
ways open to untrained labor ( if she did take th^t
course allowed her to go back.
Now as to the result, which I -lone am re-
sponsible for. There is ^ Sister Mercedes whom N.^,ncy
loves ani respects beyond all people. She does not
love either you or I. 9he did but she feels we h^ ve
both failed her, and she is no longer a child who ioes
not unlerst-nd. cister Mercedes gave her the attention,
care and love, her ppor baby heart was so hionry for,
N- ncy h: e gr-dueted with the hie-heet honors in the
school and she is gifted beyoni'mos^ girls. As Joan
E Arc, she gave a simply marvftlous presentation. The
sisters all realize her gifts ani her brain, as do the
priests who are always about the convent. It made my
heart sick to see them with Nancy the day she graduated.
Nancy at first refused to speni this vacation
with me altliough she knew I had been very sick in a
sanitarium ani had just come from there. She said she
wanted to stajr at the convent.
. r,^ o^ 4. r, ^^® ^^ abBclutGly influenoei by the eietere
c^nd Sister Raymond, the sister superior, told her to
come to me after I had saii I would sned Nancy back for
-3-
rri teisfB y* 319w Qn.ii- iadt i& tQ9l(SuB elrl* no a:73l
iSLQL ^dt^l souL no eslleqq. J ^:^o^?^ aria n'oixlw tad^sl
rswcIXo-i aa ai rfoirftr ttt
. L-gUOd T-cSQ
jjOTf oJ -.iiA ton Llijo .' -
tsarf 9cf CXiw J^riw aiiasi) '^IJsemria oa toa fcii? I "it won
aM* fc.esT Iliw uoy scjorl I fcn>3 stjsIIsw e^Yo^-^^^ 10^
:frfg0Oif# asrfd-o on rfdriw ^&l etiiw I Jitiqa au;t ai ^atiQl
Teveit^w Jcnjs Yon-sW tot iaed ad Iliw t^rf* loz Jqsoxs
isrf Tol >t0o iaow Iliw Xes^ 0* Yi* IX^rfa I oLloab ijox
.eaanlq^M
5nxff:f-©ino8 y-^s o* :^~l"■.7•' I ao.pXq itaail: 8ii:t nl
,won won:^' I .yonaH ritiw enoxj^Xsrt ifffi ot Li -.-gai at
xebaei srit vca^VS. navig 19 van avsil I ,^0.30' gnliooX ni
fcn^ toaqxa o' -^-'-^-r sdf ead bitdo js rioirfw svoX r^dtom
. sra d&iv! .tar: " ei:w srf? • ^©3 iisit-Iiffc cfeoas xfoiiiw
XXfi" ritii 'x -:-: ^iTstiis fcfljB Ylot0Xo3Cj^ nascf av^if I
rrssd ifXno aj?rf ti^irnjs iiuo^n^ isdresiasi njso I a'iiX yiai I0
.2 J£f^- ■-•-•--••■—-- 3ijni; asiXsei c:^ migacf awr.jri I yXs^^js'X
.1)3X 9V.c:i I sxil ba^BSiHi eaaXasM
Xeiltifi; -uvuuc ^^ic^■ ni xcasM fuq, I nedW
-nu rfd-iw "iXsaYm sijjo 0* ■gaix'^i' '10 ij^-iXlcfiaaoqaai srft
— - ".^sanodaJti; Bbrswot aetoasLna.t isd svoX :qaiIJ|j;^
. e s 9 aXiiltii J"i;i tm;
• -vJtl 0* fcatosqxa I ai/tj- ai tl
,Bmii iBd& ^d :tycf ,Jii3Y£ioo sai'J xti t«»9X t:©^
L /. , V-. as aredt bauol eda aojsaq tjrft avoX o* iiwoTg
tn^ ,9no xa£ riJXw noXt^looeajs x^^ ni 931 ilj-xf* .la^cf lavan
oi etXiw £X0ow arfa gnJ:\f-^8 ,6m rftiw aviX ot X)eex;i9a arfa
0* tad yioLLi-: ton bib I 11 noiaivisque laroju og Oif woy
affl.-o arfa narfw rtsva ,^59^ gnlfcaaoc:'' '- '^. .jIo-scT og
levo :^ -aTrid- aaf-^e airft cXan e^rf ads i" r.iotl Jtox^J
ot terfoJaiw Jbn£ i'oia oot a^^w I gfixji;;.> j; ,1 .bns ,o(n
TfXno sri* ax. gatvil nwo ym nxisa o? ^s -X oo;f ifl£ ,iTOw
.i.,.r> ...f...^ c, tt. ... -i \..„,.r,j /^90jtj5x*njj ot naqo a^-BW
ca ot xarf fcsT?oXXj3 asTi/oo
YonAW fflorfw safcaoiaM lOtsiS .-: el aiadT .not aXdienoqa
ton eaoi; adB .aLqoaq Lis. bao^ed e&oacBai bnj^ savoX
av^'d 9w sXaal sde tud bib ad's .1 10 uox ladtla avoX
89cX or'r,' bXirfo JB TagnoX on ai ade ba^ ^tad ball^l xftod
,noitnsttj3 ©rft Tarf sv-s^ p.stsoiaM rretein .Jin-^te'iaJcnu ion
,Tot Y'lff^^ O"? - ■•• ""■ 3d Yo'fi'cf Topq T~ ' —-^X fcri^ aT.;o
exft ni 8Tonc td adf iltiw t? a-sn Yon->H
n.fSoL aA .eXtig -.-.v . LnoYScT Latlig -.^ »iif i:n-' Xoorfce
srf? .ffoit^tnaaaiq aJJoXSvi^m YXcpaXa a ov^^ £-u'£ ,01.1' Q
erft ofc ex3 ,ni;oTC lerf X nj3 8;^?..^^ T9:f asiX-aat XXji eietaxe
\m afcjsm tl .tnsvnoo srit tjjotf^ sy^^wX^ ai£ oxlw steaiTq
*i5et-s0f:.Gis aria 'isb adf YcajsK rftiw taad& asa ot :!foJte tisarf
noiteoBV 0ld& baaqe ot fcseulsi iBiil t.s yo^-^^
£ fll ^oiB ytav naacf is.'srf I w?n>i' arfa rf-gxroiltXjs am rfi'iw
e:fa ttsa adP. .eisdt moil enjoo taur Lijij'~Xnvi ou/xiiitlfl^e
.tnevnoo adt ts Tfjsta ot £.9tni:w
aiataXe a.'ft yd I sonex/X'i^ni YXotuXoatf^ ai eJB
ot tarf tXot iioxiaqua istele arit ,fcnomY>sH i9tai8 fJn^
10'*. 3tc.3<f YonJs'K fcane i)X0ow I Jbljsa b£d I Tatljs aoi ot amoo
t
this coming year. I said it to gain time - Sinter Fay-
mond had brought her to see me at the sanitarium ?.nd
Nancy had told me she intended to go back +o Dominican
another year and to become -.. nun.
It is a generally understood thing among the
sisters, priests and girls at the school that Nancy
is to become -i. nun. It is not the mree fancy o-^ a
child, '..a this desire 60 often is, with convent girls,
but it is Nancy's true ain a.nl anbition. I would not
feel adverse to her going to the school another year and
of her becoming a Crtholic, for she could be just aa
good £. Cafl.olic as a Protestant woman, but it is the
knowledge of what .another year or two there will do in
strsnghtening her deterrrination to become a sister and
her never having knovm any good or real happiness be-
yond that found within the reetrictel life of th3 cloister.
She has never hai a chance to know by compari-
son with healthy girlish happiness if ahe wouli still
choose what is at best the unnaturs.l way of living the
sisters have, although they are lovely, gooi women and
have taught Nancy all that she herself knows of f^ooiness
but I want her to h?-ve the chance. I want to get her
away from their absorbing influence and let her get cut
among girls who live normal lives, and if, after hav-
ing experienced that, and it is yours and- my duty to see
that she does, if then she with more mature knowledge
and her own uninfluenced mind wishes to join thr order
she will do so with a ole'.rer perception of what it will
mean.
A year ago a fresh water coilege cour'ie of
three years was added to the convent. You will notice
in the Wear Book there was but one graudate. Nancy, in
addition to her four years of high school work, has done
one year of that course, oistcr Raymond wants her to
come back to finish but Dcugla? that is not the real
reason. The real reason is this: In two years' time
Nancy will be eighteen and by law her own mistress and
tlie Sisters and zealous priests want to make a nun out
of this brilliant girl for the glory of their own church.
Sister Mercedes who is the teacher of litera-
ture is a rerrarkable woman of great strength anl per-
sonality, and 'Hhe believes im licity that Nancy has
genius, not talent, but geniuf, for writing •■. nd in the
Dominci£i.n Order a nun is allov/ed to write. I sent you
her poen in last year's book. Do you not see how dif-
ferent in thought and spirit her power in this year's
book is and yet I feel thct her first ie more true poetry,
the second is a desire to write for the church.
A few days ago I found a letter from sister
Merceded, she and Nancy wtite to each other every day,
but Nancy does not want me to know it, rnd she nevr»r '
says she reoeives a letter, she treats me as a toler-
ated stranger but I feel it is what I deserve.
In this letter which was full of love and
praise, she told Nancy that this coming year she vyould
personally instruct her in the true faith and that at
the end or during the year her happiest day would be
when Nancy became a Catholic.
Nancy for a year now has told me she e;cpected
to become a nun. <"he has a rosary and says she prays to
saints and is simply inoculated with the Catlio"+ic religion
- and intends to join their church this coming year. She
has already mads retreats. I have found her reference
and schedule of them full of two weeks of long fasting and
-3-
trti^ mut-i-fi.:-
bnom
ir 'on/; Ic
. T ? ■* ;
vrtJf ?71
Tiroo e^sX;
,.;9Cf OJ" 8l
3aiovfc-= l9Sl
::^
. 'e
:>rf
>Y
:'. tiK no8
■" .•>aoorfo
I Jud
...... ;,Xli
erie JiiifJ
■ f^ri tn.3
-T 9 fie
995X1*
.10
JO
:)T
r^;9X A
)- - •
ilsd s
,^{3-lI.<iaoa
f-f , -i -
■ -"^'TB-g
oQ
!
... ..jrf
;i .tnotrsi
" t :too6
fi-QJif
M
..o'
en-
3d o;t
'Tll.L p.
-tnits*^ gni
iijjl merit io oXuceifoB cnja
paro.yer and she at th£.t time fourteen ani fifteen years eld.
The lay of commencement I met a woman, a Mra.
Sterly who is an intelli§-;ent woman. ^he used to be
on a newspaper in New York, c-he has two daughters in
the convent, ani for a time jhe lived in the^convent
herself - in order tc t:.y.e a course from ?ist--r Mercedes
ani she likes the echcol ani the nuns, but this is Tvhat
she said - "Mrs. Pr.ttison, are you goinp to alio?' Nancy
to come back next year, " I s.-.ii Nancy wantei to. ANd she
said, "Oh what a wrsted lost life if you dont get
her away fro.r. this narrow nunnery. J^he has the Tost
promising mind and the most ability of any girl I have
ever known, and I have le;rned to know Nancy very well.
All her promise will become simply an expree9ion of the
C-. tholio faith, for if she at:=y?. hers the sisters will
make her a Catholic and a nun ani that means her f^ift
o" writing will be turnei to theri own use - What Nancy
needs is a big free aJiool where her mind and character
will develop so that these wonderful gifts she possesses
may be turned into broader channels - than simply writ-
ing Catholio tracts ani for their own periodicals."
If you wii: only realize how I feel about
everything. Nancy has never had a real chf.nce, neither
you nor I ever gs-ve it to her. We have given her
things, ani paid her rills, but after all that ia all -
I do not know if you will take the trouble to ev=r read
this letter, but there is a grr-ve responsibility ras-
ing about us. I at last realize it, I hope it will be
in your heart to c.lso realize it. Is Nancy's ycung
almost unfelt life to be swallowei up in the life of
this convent and the ^uture life of the aisterhocd?
That is what her going oack will mean because slie is as
plastic as soft clay in the hands of these v/cmen she loves
kscxh and trusts so m.uch. Is this going to happer without
her having a chance for something different.
If she wouii go to a college in the e^.s-^ away
from this influence altogether for fear years ( and she
would pass any examination for entrance) then at the end
of that time when she is t7;enty-pne if she still desires
to becom.e a Catholic an 1 a nun she will at least have
had a chance of knowing something besides the li-^'e of
theoonvent. .She thinks, poor chili, that the only
peace ani h' ppiness she wants is to be found there - She
judges other life as she has founi it when 'hert? was
the discord which w:' s in her early home.
Now this i3 whe.t I hope you will lo. If
you will snei Kidney to Smith or ^fellsly or some deTiocratic
college not in a city ".'here the Catholic influence would
be more apt tc follow her, and where you will bo re.-i.son-
ably sure she would not be aporoachei by the priests, and
the day o: commencement the place was filled witli priests
ani they all me ie so much of Hancy, even Aroh Bishop Henna
had a private talk with her. Nancy thought it an honor
but I B?.w in it as she told me of it, his method of plant-
ing his desire for her corvereion in her rr.ini. If you
will send her to some college I will never ask you for
any more money after she is st-trtel in college ani I
will sign a paper to that effect. I amke only one
stipulation and that is that I may help in the selec-
tion of the school, the school to be within the means
you are able to accord, and I first of all desire Smith,
then Wellesly.
I have never wantei to come back to Freeoort
-4-
.eiM
at
:o
o ax - ixQfeiaii
^'Cr"^ ^fiiW^ 19rf
:a:- lev©
.-r;; ^eri Zlk
^ si ei'9sn
tSVQ I Ton uo^
ob I
—
C
^ -i A Ij X
c '^. -: i: r
^^
•* fc ti£
Isci
:iG I :tucf
liXW
rioi;t
.•a-
al
vx^rf I
but it hc-e 8':ea.ei lately as if that wt.9 all I coull do,
and although I ires.! it I will come back and live with
my mother. I will sew and I know I cv.n earn enough to
ke^p me. I 7/ill never by any work or deed s?.y or do
?-nything to re'lect on you or yours 'r.nd T will live
quietly and hopefully - It has t?.ken much su^ferinc
and I wouli nevertell what agony of mind to brinR'''^o
this , but at last the mother in me is more than any-
thing else in the world and I want my child to h'-ive her
chance. If you do this, if you write and say that
you will not consent to her 'oing b-;.ck another year, that
you hr;ve other pltna for her, Nancy will refuse to leave
and great pressure .vill, I think be brought to beer ■''rom
the sisters and possibly some of the priests for they
are determined to have her, but she is as yet only sixteen
and as a lawyer you would know what to do and in two years
in a normal healthy atmosphere she may change. Dcminicain
opens the 8th o:^ Aug. and Nancy is going back by the lat
she says. Watever is done should be done by then. I
have not nor v;ill I tell her of this letter for she must
not be antagonized any more than I can help.
Sister Raymond toll me once that afte-^ Nancy
had finished the college course at Dominican she wanted
her to take a course at Berkely, but I feel pretty cer-
tain this Wc s wha* V7-3 in the minis o:" Sister Mercedes
and Sister Raymond.
"At the end o" next year N".ncy will have joined
the Catholic Church. She will be seventeen, nearly
eighteen. If her father and her mother (who does not
count ( refuse to let her come back it will only be a
short time before she will, be eighteen and can choose
for herself. If an eduorition under our (sister's) in-
fluence is not available she can enter the noviate when
she is eighteen. On the other hand after a few more years
here she will have ^joined the chxirch and will be so filled-
with the Catholic faith that we would trust her for a
course at Berkely when she would be close to our influ-
ence, for the more education she acquires if it is plant-
ed upon her belief in the Gatholie religion the more it
will become here as a nun.
T. do not want her to go to Berkeley or St=:inford
for she would still be iinder their influence out here.
By this alone you oxight to knov, that for the first time
I have an unselfish interest for Nancy's good alone, for
if she stayed out here I would perhaps come back and I
love California.
Elizabeth Crein is going to Smith this fall.
She is a whole som.e minded girl and I wish N-ncy could
go there. I think liargaret Willis Pierson might be
able to get her in when perhaps others "i.ight fall through
her lateapplication. Even if she does not go to school
for another ^'ear I do hope you insist that she does
not return to the convent and we will spend the year
in Freeport or wherever you say, but I do not feel
Nancy could be happy in Frc-'^ort or with me. If you
consent or think of anything better I will be so willing
to do under your guidance anything you think beat.
I wish you would write me and if you take this course
of refusing to let her go back Nancy ani I could come
back to Fre'iport in the late sumT:er and I wii: abide
by whateveryou decide and will never intruie on you
in any way afterwe.ris*
-5-
,oi: tluoo I lis 3..n7 o'^dcf 'li .-, I ts.nora a^d &1 tud
rftiw evil ijix..- io£o' 5IB00 llx^ ^ -■> i..;eTfc I ilstforf*l£ fcrrjs
o^ si-guoDS arsQ njio I wofx^f I txra wse iXi% I .lailcfoai. iicm
ob 10 ^SR i-sefc TO iioipr Y^-^ 'C^^ lev - r ' -^ I .©<« q^ai
©vil J'l ^A- T ia.t STj^OY -xo uo^ no u.! snJtii^tfl-''
'fid ot Laim "to yn: Lajjow I icjs
"V. . ;; rft sTom ei sm ni i^.- v. ui .• e.:.j. ijB tud ^ exrit
tsif'sv.ri o^ bxtdo y-'' *^^w I i.rf... tlxois Sii>t iii aeXs gxiixit
' 't v,r^B ttt^ e;^iiw jjcy '^- texil* ot jjoy II .«p£U-i{o
Jjsr TSrf*on£ :jfoj d S'^^^Oo ''^■- *^* cfneanco rfo« XlJtw uov
ev. ='x c: esii-cT IIIw '{Oii^-K <t©x1 lol en~Iq tsdjo ev^-ri uox
mci^ iJfecT or -d-puoid ad inxifJ- I »IXiw ^lusseiq ;fj=sig i>nii
^ferf^ TO^: e^asliq erfrf- lo Qnrog Y-^cf-taaoq tas ate^feia axf^t
rr98i"xie Y-Cflo tSY 8£ el erfe *ifqf ^ted av^rl o^ Isnimisrf'sJb 0i£
a^-'?9Y o^* /li i:;n£ ofc o^ J.rffw T^ornf tl;-' " — -.7£i ^ aos Laj3
al^oLtttaod .e^ix^rfo y-scb dJe siaxlqec L^isaxoa & as.
tfel erf+ ^d 7i'o£d "^aiori ei yoxi-sH tn.- -31.'-^ : ;:c*'8 3ri;f anaqo
I .xisn'* Y*^ eaot acf biuoda snot si tavs.+ =W .e^^a 9de
tai/in erfa ^o^t tetfel atdt 10 i9:I liet I IXiw ion ton sv^ri
.qlsff rtio I niiifJ sxom ^^^ basiaQi-^jstriJ^ ad j-on
Ycn.?TI -'-etlir, isdi sotto &m i.Xo.+ i: aoaxf.P. le^siS
fcerxi^w sifa n^olnimoQ rt^ aaii/oo sgsXXoo adit ijsrisinx^ t^
-leo ',:*^siq Iee!t I *urf ,vXe:^if/a a.s saTi/oo ^ fi2i.6;f o^ tsd
ssbsotsU TstetB Jo eixrim Sii* nx g.-^w tjsdw 3.sw a in* nxa*
.l5nc •" '^ .:-378i3 Las
benzol ' ^^ xoaslS. i&ex :fX8x: "^-o Jbne ecfit
■;-iTj-en ,n:99tn9V98 9rf XXivr silB .aoix/r:. r,ix.oiit.^ 3x:'t
ton 89ot oriw) ted&ota rer. La^ led^st xad II .aeatd-gta
js 9d Y-^^c IXiw it -]loj^d srr^cc isri ^sX ot 86x;'>'^i ) tnuoo
(Paooilo aao txi.B nsaW^is -SiJ ilxw ©rie sio'iad omti tTi^odS'
-tti {e*reiata) tuo i^basj noti.ioube n.; 1:1 ."iXsRierf lol
aoiiv striven 8j:i* te&ae n/io oila sidBli^v^ ton ai sonaxfll
8:t£9Y siorr. wel js ist"^^ in^ri larfto exit nO .nsstrfj^xs ax arie
-fcslli^ oa 90' IXiw tfl3 doii/ric axiJ tsnioQ svjsrf iXiy/ aria axerf
3 To'i "lerf r^euat tluov sw tirfft i-fti£^ oiXoift-^0 srit dtiw
-i/Ilni Tijo ot asoXo sd bluov ede naxlw YXs^fieS t£ aaiuoo
-tflfiXq ei tX "^i seixxrpois srfa nott^oxrfce stofn exft :rol .sens
*1 010m 9dt aoi-gil^i: eXXoa'tjsO erft nl 'laiXocf -taxi noqx; ta
. : ..-: £ 8.3 9Teff e.ffiooao' ""':■-
ijio^nstB TO YsXei'isQ ot os ot ■ ton ot I
.eiarl tuo sonat/XIrni •ii9D+ :-: lu; sd Llt:te IXuow axi? -lo :
smit tsrrJ:'? 9rf:t xot tjsrlt woni ot tifQjJo uoy shoXj:. eixft y3
-icl ,9noX.s fccog a'YoneVf 10I te?istnl ifaiiXsemj n^ evad I
I rn^ jfosd amoo aqBJiiaq tluov/ I aiaxl tuo r>©Y -■''■a ©^e "it
.jBintEoliXjsD svoX
.XX£l eixlt xftimB ot anxog fix nx-saO xJtocf«s.tX3
JtXx;oo Y^n-"-F rfeiw I f HjS I ' amoaaXoiiw £ ax ari3
sd tjjgxw iioeiex^ el II: ' :M'nlXit I .oierft 03
d-^ucxclf L1.b\ r^xi-yxin Ptarfto e-;;-; ce;: r' :v ni larf tag ot sXd£
Xoonoa ct o§ ton aeoJb ^xfe "ix aevU .nolteolXqqi^ et^X lerf
B90f; srfe t^nt rielani xjoy sqoxf ct I --i.-rsY iQxf+on.; to?:
isBY srf* tnaqe IX Iw sVf tn^ tnavnoo erft ot nTutaT ton
Xes^ foa ot I tyd ,Y-~=e ~o^ TsvsTs/fw to tToqpsT*? ni
x/oY "il 'Sta r'tlw to tT0''?9T'? ni Y'?'?-=^ 3'^ tXixoo xda^Vi
:QniIXtw OS 9d III"' I T'' ' ' ' "o .■'xili'-'- to tnaenoo
.tasd jfnlxlt uoy <- 'a "ixroY latnx/ ot ot
93'xuoo ain't 9i£'t uox x .> n.j ;-<;T: r.. itw tXx;ow ucY rfalw I
90'^oc tluoo I ttm \conx5H icjid. og Ten teX ot snleu^eT to
stl-'js ;XlT7 I tas Ta-^mira 9t£X arft nl tioqr^aT'i ot io^d
0OY no atxfTtnl Tevan XXlw tnjE atloet uoY^svat^rfw Y^f
I only want what will be for Nancy's ultimate
happiness and beat interests, I know N'-mcy's ani my
life may always continue ap-art and I look forward to a
great deal of iisap.'^ointment ani he-/.rt ache but I know
that I will hc.ve the courage to keep on for I think
only of Tia-ncy* Won't you please write to me and tell
me that you will aee th. t Nancy doe« not go back?
Sincerely,
Ethel Pa^tiaon.
June 14th, 1918.
About the aame time she wrote the le-t-ter to the
appellee, the appellant wrote another letter of similar im-
port to Urc. Jennie Kryder, appellee's sister, who resided
in California; and this letter contrins substantially the
same thoughts and fears concerning Nancy; and in connection
therewith also contains certain statements concerning the
matter of alimony.
The appellee did not receive appellant's letter
until July 15th following, but immediatedly concurred in her
suggestions about taking N^ncy out of the sisters' school;
and wrote to the appellant to that effect; in this letter
he stated, that he thought they could come to some understand-
ing about sending her to Smith's college, and asked her to
wire him if she was still in the same frame of mind as when
she wrote the letter. Upon receipt of this letter from
appellee, the appellant wired him, that she was still in the
same frome O"^ mind; and thereupon appellee wrote another
letter to the appellant, in vThich he stated among other things,
that he had received her y;ire, and that he ahi just written
Nancy telling her that he hai deciled to send her to Smith
College, because he thought that Smith College was a bette-^
school for her than the just organize! junior college at
San Rafcel could possibly be; and that he expected her to
come east in two or three weeks at the longest; that he
had also vrritten the Dorainician College at San Bafael, that
Nancy 'vould not return there because he was goinp^ to send
lier to Smith College. He also st-Atei, in thfe* letter, that
if he could not get Nancy into Smith College, he v'ould try
■to get her into Vassar or Wellesly; and assured ^-^ e appel-
-6-
Qt.-tniflij e'Yone'^ lol ecf Xliw &£dn tasw ^Ino I
j3 0* I:t>:«i?'* :^o?I T fcn^ i"i- q^s sunij-noo h^^wXjs ^.ara sill
.Oiei .nJi^X 9/ujL
^/^^ toTff sila ©fflii* sfliJBa 9dt tuodk
^:^bL i^d&oaa etotw &n.all.9qq£ exfo ,s3li8qq£
Jbsl :f , Je a'8yi.r3qq,fi ^ist^fiX siiinaL .33M oc^ tioq
aox-foQcinoo nl bas ;^on£T! sninidonoo ai£9l tajs aid-gUQcii smsa
• YfioiEil^; 10 igtd'fim
•ret;t9l a' iasli9qq£ 9vl809i ton fcjLt esllsqq^ sdT
T»rf nl £>9Ti»ortoo vI^e.ti;t^9(:nmt *uc' ,-QniwoIIo- xiJSI ^lul, Xid-m;
iXoorrc. ' - - ;n ^uoci£ anoiiteggsua
-j5~-tQX ei<;\i- fix j#09l1:« ,+j3ri* o# JnjsXXgqq.^; 9rf;t ot Sitoiw tn£
-i.rr^te*rofcni/ oftoe ot sfnoc yerfcf Jrf^ijo /jxfi' ttet&ta ad
ot TSf^ f?«3{aA btt^ .g-gelfoc e'rittis?? c;t T9rl -^aitase iuodjs gxxl
.11*8 e£W sda i:l aid gilw
rr-T*^ Te-t+sX R : t.Tiaosi noqU .tottel sdt atoir ede
:.d tejlw tn«XXoqq£ zdi ,99Xl9qqjB
I'id' y- aocuorsdf Las ibaiia I0 emcal gnusa
ta^nxrt '<-8;"f+o sno3!£ \ I xfoirfw ni ttrr-sXXeqq^ srft ot letJaX
xi9*tiir,' teuQ tilr. eil J.-rf?- Jbn£ ,9Tiw led tsvX8.09a tad ed t^d&
ff^/irr-: o' i9xf Jbnr- isd sulXXe* yo^^^^
"St -Tf 9g9i;.oO rl.tx.T!3 t^xl;!' td-guodi 9d eauBOed j^e'gelLoO
t-s e-g^iloo loiaui tasxnij^io tai/j; «riJ a^dt leri lo^ Xooxfoa
at 19:: tetoeqxe : jcf Y-tcfieaoq felyoo Xajal^fl aji8
srf tJsrf^ ;t£9giioX &is&ff 99Tr:- -9 9moo
tiSri* .XealjsH iisB tos sgsXXoO ajsioiciaoQ Bd* aattirrr oeis tsd
tnee ot vnxog 8£w 9rf esif.-oscf eisrft niut9T toa tluo^v \{on£lI
tjscft ,T9t*9X iirit ni ,t9t£ta osXjb sH .gggXIoO dtircB ot isd
Yit ^Xuow 9rf .9391X00 ntXmS otni yon^W teg ton tXuoo edit
lant thi^t he would t-..ke charge of Nanc^' and would pay all her
expenses; and thet in addition to this he would pay the
appellant |:50.00 per nonth, and that Nancy should be started
east as soon aa possible. At the close of the letter, he
makes the following statement! "My financial resourcer; are
about strained to tlie breaking po'nt on account of the war,
but I am satisfied that ray sisters will help me out i-^ nec-
essary, as the matter concerns Nancy's welfare so ira^^ortantly.
I have written them today something of the matter/ However I
feel no mD.tter what happens, we must get her out of this.*
Efforts were made to get Nancy into Smith college, anl Wellesly
and Vasaar, which were of no avail; and arrangement was finally
perfected by which Nancy wae sent to Bsrkely, a protestant
school in California; and Nancy spend a year at this school.
After that she returndd to Freeoort with the appellant and then
went to reside with her father; and he sent her to the Wisconsin
University to complete her education. Appellant claims, that
sending Nancy +o Wisconsin University was without her consetftf
but Nancy testified, when she t-.lked with her mother about the
matter, that she me,de no objection tliereto. The principal
objection which the appellant afterv/ards urged was, that she
did not like c©-c ducat ional schools. The appellee testified,
that he ht d expended at least C 900. 00, to procure for N?.ncy
suitable and pretty clothes, and for school expenses, ani for
Nancy's maintenance after she had come to live with him, in
Oc-:ober 1919. the became of age October 9th, 1919; ifter
finiahBiing her education at the University of Wisconsin, she
returned to the home of her father and has continued to r3."?ide
with him sinoe thi.t time. In Februi;ry 1930 the e.ppellant
filed a petition in ■♦^he circuit court of Cacroll county a-
gainst the appellee for a rule tc show cause why he should not
be held in contempt of court for fj iiing to ibay the tlSO.OO
per month provided in the decree in the divorce proceedings.
-7-
red EXs ^
fc9u2ai;t"e
ai*.
SQOIiXC
,tc.pr
-osn
,VI^T
I T?V^
^
.Xoc:^-
n^ ■
"■•■"■ ■^ 'rr^I
' wieqq^
. .■ijlaaaci ^jj .roos 3^3 ia.ae
. '- t:jo<SB
l&d Iliv sx.a .:cr»3a air»3 T v0cf
' ajeH exiiscnco 'iscr^jSia sifj ex jyiaeas
hot pssrft iie^d-lTw 8VB:f I
tjsdv latt'^.T? ■-:^n leal:
-'■r riclrfw ,'XPBa.sV bn^
,:>a^ll irt«s jijitncoliljiO at loorloa
■ '■ - : tP3t o:t ^fnsw
iflU nianooeiW o' ^isa-sH gnii^noa
roasU iud
.lottoeldo
oa tit
yj.QZ.2; ;^ii.v3 tv^ Oil t&dt
-itiatq <sthja
■ ,^ " oO
:v-iri.- ■, :tsii:' ial'i.
i.C^2~i^
♦ 3ani£!daooiL^ soiovii: sxio
vv salleqqfi erf* jtafll^a
":: tq^^^:^flOO aX tled^ 9(S
There was a hearing upon the petition- anl at the clopje of
the evilence taken at -^his he- ring, the court gr.v" the appellee
leave to filel a coixnter petition 'or a reiucticn o* -^he rronth-
ly ?.llow. nee for ^..limony; the court took account of the pay-
aients nade by the appellee, anl the amount expended under
the original decree, and found that there reniained due to the
appellc-.nt under the decree, a balance of C^OC.OO at the ti^ne
of the entry of the preBsnt decree; and required the appellee
tc pay that amoimt ; the proviaiona of the decree oonoerning
alimony were thereupon modified by relucine^ the amount to be
paid to appellant to $75.00 pc month; end from this jlecree an
appeal in prosecuted.
It is contended by appellant, that the court improp-
erly allowed the $900.00 credit, which w? c- for Toney expanded
in appellee's efforts tc get Nancy to change her mind about be-
coming a nun; a task which appellee undertook at the instance
of appellant. It is :.lso contended, that the court improperly
modified fhe decree by reducing the amo\jnt o- .Ij.raony. It ie
appare.nt that the amount w]iich was originally fixed as alimony
oontemlatod the aup ort snd maintenance of both the appellant
and Nancy. TThen the appellc-n-*- v/as relivdd of the care and
support of Nancy, this made a proper basis for an equitable
readustment of the natter. The amoimt fixed by the court
in the readjustment does not :.ppe:r to be unjust or ineqiiit lale^
taking into account the changed circuastances brought about ?.t
appell-nt's instance and not only involving aidi-'-ionc-.l expend-
itures for appellee, but relieving the appellant of m ny expend-
itures and obligations concerning Nancy. We find no error in the
coiirt's finding of the balance due the appellant; anl are of op-
inion that the |900.C0 credit was properly allowed to the appellee,
It is also contended, that the court erred in the find-
-8-
-v;^?r ..i ,: ifiiomJtXij ao^ eoaiiwo.lij^. Y'
' sni>S4.'ieT s" 'i" fcnjjol iiite ,s9ioefc J^aigiio erf;
j.: ■ . " ,; scii^Xiicf 3 ,99ioai) srit istxu; cfxiAtXaqq.
.rxi.'psi- eaexq e£i& ic \:^J^«* »rfJ^ '5:<
£c J , ::i. . .'lifcoo noqixstarf* ©isw Yaomilj
ajs 99^cat stt.S .'ncix in.. i;i:fni-:s sq 00.37^ 0* *fl£lXoqq.5 ot fciusc
.ce + uo38ortq si I^sqqj
-qoaqJdi tijjo. LQiaoiaoo ai tl
-s<: .: 9jj£i-::o oj ';ca.:^l d-Qg o;t ed""!©!^® a'eaXIsqq^ nj
9or:^*i:n.i 'cxffw :iBM& s imsa 3 gaimoc
Xl'xeq. ^;.siXi3cncc ouXjb 8.- ' . -naXXeqqjB 1c
Yhot;:. '.irfw ;tcojoai>5 sif* jfsrf:f :^C3a£qqi
bnv; 5"~r; isXXeqq^ erijf aaiVU .xoaJsM Jbai
-' "■ sqoT:: s Qfcism 8 iff* iTjoujsH lo d'aoqqx/e
t^^v ; +on esot ta9m&(iiJlt~ieii 9iit al
! : ^.K.u: IXC 1 agriiJiJo srf.t tauooo^ oiai -galUsi
-•^ ctlvlovni yL^O: ton fcxi^ son^jd-eni B'ta^LLeqai
-tne - - ':^ gflivaiXai iud ,8&XI©qcjs jol asni/jti
<= ' ^ - .,...;.]! gnimsonoo anoid-jiisilcio tni; a3iu&t
- ,. -qq£ add- eufj aonBX^cf sri* I0 sxxlinll a'rf-ujoc
.asXXoqqjs f riieqoTiq aisw d-itsio OO.OOS^ srit Jarfd- noJtnJ
-tnlt 9rf. •-* d-srid- .bebnadrtoo oaX^ ei dl
ing, that the contr£.ct which the ar,peilc.nt mr.de with her
solicitor oonoerning the fees to be paii for his ?iervice9, in
securing t.^e alin^iony iue for appellant, "be cancellei, 'i.n3 ^re-
viling instec.i for the payn^ent to appellant's soliciLor of the sum
of $S25.C0 for the sErvicea rendered by appellant's solicitor rnd
for expenses incurred. VThile it is true, th::,t the court "7"!.3 v7ith-
out ijuriadict ion in this case to Cr.ncsl cr :t^.r6ga';e a contract be-
tween the appellant anl her solicitor, tho solicitor not being a
party to the suit, the court was clearly within the scope q-^ its
powers in fixing the amount of solicitor's feey rrhich it deeired
reasonable and just; ani the c-mcellatioTi an.l abro?;'..tiori of the
contract must be regarded as effective so far as concBrns the
rights and oblige.tions of the appellee and in so far as the con-
tr; ct may conflict with the amount to be paid by him. Put it is
a sufficient answer to appellBnt^s contention in this regn.rd to
say, that she was not injured by this oancellaticn order, and
hence is not in a position to ^rake it the basis for n r'jversyl of
the decree. y.'e fini no reversible error in the record, ani the
decree is therefore affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Heard, J. took no part.
-9-
n
130 j^rJnoo ^dc^ istlt ,3ni
3SI srtj- siilnrcsbaoo icJioiloa
-O' rOi SUt ^n -l\tT0O9C
tr ' • ■ ^ lo
_r;j. ansqxe lo'z
g txua eriit o* y^xsq
aif^ 3lc^noaB9T
-noo eri;t o enox ^«^ strigii
-aCO ^^H! .to =1*
isloll^x/ia £
df ,^£a
1c . 1 oonsrf
eri+ .33T09b 9ri*
loiaiSiit ei ssiosi)
.x;siCTi!i%£ 99T08C
.j-icq on ioot .L ^iaiseH
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ^^
SECOND DISTRICT. \ I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court.
in and for said Second District pf the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimonv Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this I2th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.
I
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
/ u ^ f^
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Beg-un and held, at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day/of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hund/ed and
twenty, within and for the Second District 0/ the State 0/
Illinois: \
\
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres iding-Zjus t i ce .
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justice
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk. /2 1 9 LA. 63 7
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff
BE IT REMEMBERED, >that af/erwards, to-wit: on October
12, 1920, the opinion of t^i^' Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following-, to-wit:
TeriE llo. 6310.
Maude Henning,
Appellae,
vg Appeal from County Court
Peoria County
The Hanover Fire Insurance
Company of New York,
Appe i lant
Niehr.us, J.
219I.A. est
This is ?. suit comnienoel "by '•'.r)pellee bn ths County Court
of Peoria County to recover upon a policy o-^ in?ur>-nce, ipnuel by
appellant oov=;rin?y certain houaeholi -^urniturs nni tool's o^rne i by
appellee located in a dwelling house at Canton, 111. A ^irs broke
out in the room containing this furniture an.1 lij.mc.ged it. Appellee
thereupon sold it, and then brought hti^ action. Thf? trial resulted
in c. verdict ani ^udf^raent in fa.vor of appellee for $386.00, •^■^om
which the appellant has appealed to this court.
One of the errors assigned b" appellant is, that the
court erred in permitting the introduction of a letter written by
appellee's attorney, over the objection of the appellant, containing
self serving declarations. This letter purported tc give a list of
the articles ? lleged to have been burned, and the fair cash market
value of the articles; and certain staterr.ents concerning the state of
preserv ticn, in which they were found; ani that there rpre high clsss
goods; and could not be duplic-ited in the market for 33-1/3 percent
more than the valuation appellee had placed upon them. It also con-
tained a statement that the adjuster for appellant haJ indica+ed to
appellee, that her loss aaiounted to about $75 to $80. To this letter
a reply wj.s received from appellant stating, that the m.-i-^ter of ad-
justment had been placed in the hands of F. R. RichmonJ; ani that
-1-
eOXSG .oil misT
soniiitjjeni ©li'ij isvonBH ©riT
1 Ci»
i+XlsiXsqqA
Ycf feirr^fi ,©on-TLfeni *o '■lotloq .c iroqu i>?vooei o;t x^aisoO siioa^ lo
\[d tearrc sioo'g tan stuttmi)'*- ILodeBUorl ats&rev j^niifvoo tasILsciqs
...r .. _-i-- , r£T ^notc^iO ;tJ3 saifcri ^nille-wt i3 ni isitjsooX 9sll3qqjs
;-: — 1^ r^jj extf^imir^ elrf:* ■gaial.^&troo moot erij- nl d-uo
£9,7 :. i .,i\ .,.i).l:I-c.c el&ti lri:gi/cic' nsrf* txue ,^2 tXoa noqusierlJ
.„...■. An nr.r^ ,..>- ^^---,,^,. '>Q ttoffi?! ni *n8«8ti/r ifl.s .toitiev - ni
-" o* t^Z^eqas e3ti J-fi£lI»qq£ 9ri& dot Aw
Qdt i.'.:.: ,3i ;. oengiae.s aioti9 srf* lo anO
^jl „, + +;.-„. ^^+j.^r ... . .jfcoac^ni sil:?- gaititimTsq ai i^sias i-ujoo
gnifti-s -.v.- . . ..-. • ; w. - fToi^ostc^o 6/1* tsvo tYs^io^^-s e'ealleqq^
^o fsil £ svlg ot iataoqii/q i9*t9l sirfT .Bnoi:t.3i4lo9L gnivisa 1:198
tsiisffi da^o ii£^ 9x1* tar. ^tea-wd aasd 9v:ri o* be-^9ll.=i aaloltiJS sdt
^0 s*-s*8 sxft 5flini9onoo a*n9.^9*'*e aijs^isc t.ajz jegloi^ts 9r{* ^o 9jjIj3V
^^~Io rf^gxrf 91SW 9T9ri* *3rft ta£ jtfiuol 919W \c9ri* riolriw at ,noit^vi9a9T:q
*a90i9q £\r-££ TO^ taiijeffl srf* ni bg^fcollqut sd Jon fcluoo tn^ ;e£)oog
-aoo oelB jI .jcari* noqu Jbeoplq tsd 98lX9qq^3 aotSsulsv odt a^dt 91001
o* b9-^j::0tt nt fcjQri tnBXXsqq^ to* i^iBUlta 6d& S^:df taemBt^&B ju teat^t
Tet.t9X eixft oT .08$ 0* 3^$ *iJOcf£ 0* t&tiauox£, eaoX a9r{ j-£d* ,99XX9qq£
-fcj? lo Ter^'im Sff* tsrit ^}^attJzta ta^ilaqqe rcoiJ i9vX909i asw ^Xq9i £
t£.d& tas ' L ncit!."'"'^ t^ .^ .^ """ ^^f ^^'^K "■•''■"^' tl 'fir^.''-- ns«d i^ o-ngmJaifi;
he wouli give the matter the necesaH",ry at + ention. It was insisted
by appellee, t:mt tha letter referrei to, written by her r.ttorneys,
was competent as a foundation for the introduction of appellant's
reply letter. But it i3 r.pparent that the reply letter of appellant
which referrei to the number of the policy, did not require for its
introduDtion the self serving statements in appellee's letter; and
it w:.r, error for the trial court to permit 3ta incroduction in evid-
ence. Jewel Belting Co. v. Haiuilton 257 111. 338; Razor v. Razor 149,
111. 631; O'Meara v. Cardiff Cocil Co. 154 111. App . 331, and Pr.rnett
V. Noble 155 111. App. 13S.
Another error urged by appellant is, that the court re-
fused to strike out incompetent evidence upon .-notion of appellant.
Upon her direct examination, appellee had testified about the prop-
erty which wr.s in the roo^ at the time of the fire. Upon cross ex-
amination it developed, that appellee had had these goods stored -.vith
a Mrs. Walker; and after renting the house c.nerein the fire occured,
instructed Mrs. '.7:tlker to remove the furniture into this house, and
then -.vsnt avray on .\ visit. Appellee had never seen her property in the
rco:.i in v?hich it wa.s stored: v7-.s not there at the time of the fire;
and did not arrive there until four dayg after the fire. Appellant
therefore made 'i inotion to exclude hsr evidence on that subject, be-
cause it -.vas hearsay, which motion was denied by the courtp A party
h; 2 a right to insist, that incompetent testimony shall be excluded;
and whoever such testimony is admitted the court, should exclude it,
and direct the jury to disregard it. Sailors v. Nixon - Jones Print-
ing Cc. 30 111. App. 515; Wickenkamp v. Tickenkamp 77 111. 92; C. P,
& St. L. Ry Co. v. Elume 13? 111. 451. This refusal of the court to
exclude the hearsay evidence on appellant's motion must be regarded
az reversible error .
It is further urged by appellant, that there is a varianoe
between the proof and the decl?ration; but inasmuch a9 the declaration
has not beer, abstracted, this queetion cannot be considered and m.U8t
be regarded as waived. The appellant is required to furnish such a
far L .
isijiqq-i .3 + i-eI ylq©!
Bti lol sTix/peT &oa Lit ,voiXoq arid" lo ladmixn orft o* fsiasitei xfolrl
in-: iTstTSl 8*99ll9'- n8cis?£;fe gnivasa ^Xae silrf- iioiS'cui.o'ijflJ
-I)ivs ni: rrc . isg ot JiiJoo X-siiit 3dt rol ioi\q £i:-w d-i
,e^X los* r .V iosii?T j8£f - • ^ noJ'Xi.'ni: iJIeS XswsL .eons
d-*exix,:~ tn^ ,X£f; ..qqA .1X1 i-'I .oO X.;oO ^libajsO .v jsixsU'C (XS3 .1X1
.SSX .qqA .1X1 3?X eXdoK .v
;-:! [fn^XIsqqje '{C teguj zoiib ledtonA
1 3 9XX9qq.3 ,noi.tx;ni3£X9 losiit rod aoqU
aL 3rw rfoiiiw vti©
1 sdllaqqr t^dJ ,£©qoX3V3t :*i nci^^aiffi
TX/i-iniJjl ©a' J- svome-i :?/ .siM fcsJoLrltsni
no %£.'■ r^edf
■..' *1 rfoiriw at' mooa
"on Jfcit tnjs
9tj6m s:ic iSisifit
.'J ' -
Iriw ,v;£6ii79if Bsn ii kusj£i
^tslarrio* irfgia £ axri
Y^omit8»a- reus Tsvgngdw th^
lUt 9X1* *09iit f^n
. . ;A .XXI OS .60 arri
. :XI 7£X smjJiH .V .oO yH .J .*8 5
-fjlvs ^jsaiaerf 9rf;t aLx/Xoxs
. 10119 sXcfiaisvs^'e;
i.^-Xc9fc '!:ooiq 9rf* flaawJe-
j-BJLfra tnjB £)9i9i:2R«oo acf toan£0 aoi^faawp 8ld.+ ,£9i^o ;i#6cf£ crescf ton bjsiI
JE riotfe risiniu'?: o;f bsiiupei ei tflfiXXeqqjs 9riT .i-svi^jiw as tsXiiigai 9cf
-?i tijjoc 9ri:t
. j-n^XJaqq. ■
-qoTq axfiJ tooc
ro floqt
rftxvv hsrod-a afjooa esericJ
ha.F. j5ajL;oxf ein
Slid- ni Y^-sqoi-:
J91I-
*ni?XIsqq''v .s^fil
-90 ,^C9l^qiJ.-
jt-9tx/Xox9 9d XX^n'B \fnc
,*i sLxjXc-
-j-nii''' asri'^L - iioxlT' .v aiv'
T; ■ fuoc ".:.+ ■.-: X£airt9i ax
tgiixsgsi 9Cf t? .
•off^li^-.v X: ei 9i?ff.+
nox*£a-f:Xoe.' j ffox/in8£Xil
ecxrsi
-£-
complete abetr^-ct of the reccri as will fully present every error
rslied upon, t-nd whioh is sufficient for the examination and der
termination of the matters in controversy without the examination of ^
the record itself. Oiler v. City of Mattoon 167 111. 18; People v.
Yukak-uV3k:i.8 363 111. J23; Juckson v. Win-ins b87 111. 336j ?t . L. A.
& T. Ry. Go. V. Kolm:.n BB 111. App. 533; Berber v. Me Hi ah - Hayward
Co. 3C9 111. Acp. 2S9.
Another point urged by appe lant is, that the damages are
excespive, and are not br.aed upon competent evidence. Appellee over
the objection of the appellant, sought to show, as the measure of dam-
ages, the difference between the fs.ir cash market value before the injuy
and the fair cash market value after the injury. The authoritien have
been fully collected, and discussed at great length or this point in
the case of McDonnell v. L. E. & W. Py. Co. 208 111. App. 443. The
ruls is there laid down, that where personal property ha? been injured
ani can be re'^airsi, the proper measure of damages is the cost of the
repairs; but if it cannot be repaired, then the me=..sure of d3sroa?rea Is
the difference between the fair cash market v=-lue of the property before
th-- injury, and the fair, cash market value after the injury. In the
cose at bar, many of the good? 'vere injured beyond repair. 11 JtJix was
encumbent upon appellee in the first instance to prove that these goods
were damaged beyond repair, or if they were capable of being repaired
to prove tl~-e cost of each rep ire. After the fire appelle sold many
of the articles and ge.ve credit to appellant for the totsd svim she re-
ceived therefor; but the evidence does not show whether she received what
the property was reiisonrbly worth, nor whether it wa? capable of being
reioalred; and if so what would ^^e the cost of repairing.
For the errors indicated the judgment must be reversed and
the cause is remj.nded for another trial.
Reversed and remanded
-3-
•tOTie yrevs :^n9.-' 7 aiW lo .to-sT^fscf^ eteXqmoo
~4*c Jbn.- ,. . dtt^.a trr-- .noqii' LaiXei
l Sa iTjSCsIoH .V .00 .'{H .T A
.eeS .qqA .ill GOS '.oO
!-v'j 'sIIeqqA .aonetiva :tneteqmoo noqw tsa^d *on eis taa ,9viJ3a9oxe
'ii/c- -r-.r ::.;*t aa ,worf8 o.^ ^ifrtro"; . vr.:! Ti-^q-^ eii& 1o aot&oeldo edf
.i;fgn?I s&osLLoo yXXi/l rt»9d
.IT ^or , . ,^ . . :3nnoaoII ^o sbbo orf*
'■o tsor f.'l'* Bi --^ - ,--. »L9tl.e<*8t def nio £n£.
.j'^^Bff ^r' A^.r :'?-t ecT tocittJSO it 1:2 *0Cf jailraqsT
.'Tiulai . . ^rf+ fcn-3 ^xtsJl^i Bdt
atoor- epf .Ilsqqis noqu ta3dmuoa9
t : tnoYQcT Jbssemjsb ©^sw
-.^f:r.r tic- nXrs7c".? 9t ■ . -.^rl., '^st -'uue Ic teoo eiit'firo'zq ot
LctJz: aelot&'ts edt to
i^ iisd iro'isrBd& bevlBo
B' -OB:~.QiBsv vtieqotq erf*
• trT.-in9T el 9bi/..30 r
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ^
SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^- I. ARTHUR E. SNOW. Clerk of the Appellate Court,
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and
twenty, within and for the Second District/of the State of
Illinoi s : / §
Present--The ,Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres idin^ Jus t i ce ,
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice^
ffi^n. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justice^
\
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk.
CURl S. AYERS
\
""'"/ 219I.A. 63 7
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
OG i ►' i IJ,iw ^he opinion' of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following-, to-wit;
I
(Jan. No. 6300,
Le.vio H. Bower, aiijjelloe,
va. Appeal from Peoriu.,
Herbert 'Y. Hancool:, ;.p;ooll;,nt.
2i9l.i^-637
DIBELL, P. J. Lo'.vif3 H. Bo v\:r is t. dev.lQV in Chici.go
in uBc3d autonobilou under tlio tr do n:-mc "The Auto Exch ..nge", Her-
bert W. H .noo:;k live;? in Pcori,^, in tho buainea -; of managing fi.,rma
and dealin- in re: 1 8at;;te. V/e desired to buy -- Hudson Speedster
automobile of the 1917 model, and found one in Peoria in the garage
of Lotiis Geyloj: Comp.ny, ovaied by Max Louis, vfhich -.7 u for sale.
Hanoojk bought if of Louio, K:.id 1^50 dovm and Ol>000 the next d..y
in full, and a]3ent .'^366,90 in r..?- pairing; it ^.nd painting it and put-
ting on no. I tirea. Tho ni.tcjhino had once been ovmed by Bo.ror, He
found it in pot3:3Q:^sion of Hr.ncock in Peori-. and deraio-nded it. The
preponderanoe of the evidence is th.. t he told Hanooclc ...nd others in
Peoria th:.t it had htjon stolen from him in Chicago. Hancock did not
give up the machine ..nd Bo.v r brought re])livin ugainst Hancock an I the
Louis Gayler Company for it. The sheriff did not obtain the c-r.-r upon
the .vrit ^nl plaintiff filed .a declaration in replevin v/ith . jount
in trover, to v/hich pleas v7oro filed, th; .t to the count in trov r be-
ing not guilty. Plaintiff dismissed thrt suit .-.g.^inst Louis Goyler Co-
mp..ny ani there -^a;-, a tri .1 on H.noook'a plea to the count in trover
and a verdict and ,. judgment for plaintiff for ;i?l,OaO, from which E n-
cook apperils.
Bo-.-/-r ^:3l-..im3 that v/hile hs owned this machine in Chic- go a
atr.-nger came to him and desired to buy it • nd to turn in a Saxon Six
3 a down p.-ymont . nd to give a series of notes m.turing frciri month to
month for the re:it of the selling price; that the man represented hira-
:'lf to be Howard McDo.vei? '.f Aurora; th. t this oaa on Mi«,y 7, 191£';
th-.t Bo'ffer took his S .aon c r- :..n i iro.; —.•> notes for the difference and
,-3JtlO©"T
^^^ 'A.lQl^
.0088 .oU ,n%t
^BoLlBquJj ^1(}VoQ. .H aiwoJ
.fcV
O3a;ci£[0 xii 18 X.
' ■: j-feLcisqS noaJ'X/H . vi/eJ
... ' J3GIC
^Qvll :^GOon. H .W j-Tsd
ino0*I ni ©iio Lrii/ol Lxi~ «IqLo.ti TfGI sd* lo sXXcforaoti;
+n»cj6 ijflii ,XXjLrl ni
- - ..x;.o ^i;^ -- oi—iiw-y. viiT _,8aiJt* «««■ no gni'^t
::o noJtee&eeoq nx &i Lauol
..»il JjX. . i: ocnyllvo »rf.+ lo -^jorui^ceijnoqeaq
il; axi. iaoa'i neXotp noad h^d tl i-^df iilzoe
.:.ii-ii i^iii. ..:...■ axvilqai (tr 'VoS Lfl^ Btildosm edt qu evjt
sdd" nt^^do Son blL 'lllnodi, &xlT ,J-2 noli: Y^-^JQinoO isXysO bIwoJ
*r;rr-,;. •-:- ;.'i:vaXqei fli bsXil lli&itU-.lq Las *la\v oriJ-
-.kj ^i vo-ii ai iauoo edt yXxi &:. ~^_ dz)td\i o& t'lcvoiJ- nl
VoO 8lx;oJ *«inr,..r>i -.tior. -iicf jjoar ' ,.2ini-'iX*^r .yJ-Xiir:;;: *on gni
aovoiit ni ttxTj/oo wilcf o& iJoXry e'^ooonrtK iiv.- i-.li:f ' .rxodcf in-'; Yn.c.q:
-fi.E doidv Hoi'i ,Oc;C\Xc; toI ?-lx;tnl oXq lol JnemgLuf, ^- Ln-. Joiiiov ^ Lu
,eli;sqqjii jfoo:
. Btdi Jbenwo sri ©IlxfK :t- rf* eral^Xc afV»oa
xIG n- i n'ijji o.t tn .+ i ^f0d oJ baiiaeJj Lite rairf o* em-io aegn^iajr
oj" ri^noi^ liiO'ix anlmy^f ;ni uo:fon to "-^'i?; o:t Ln^' tnota^.-q nwoL ai e.
-ffliri be&netyBiqoi n.riv • rft .Krlit jdoXI'^ ^.nllXae erf* lo ;fi;8a sxlcf lol d;tno.
;'^X -.Ij- c)"i^* ^.-iaoo: lOWoQtM L-'umoR od oi IXe;
Lr: . 9crcaafci.iJtxi» oii^ aoa eBton qu notL btu. 'XoO noa^-^S Bid olooi lowoS :f.:d"
-X-
a chattel Tnortgago ^sojurin them, and hr.d th.. buyer exooute them,
..nd sent hin av/L„y till :.. lc;.tor dc.y, rocorded the chattel mortga-ge
in Kune County --nd looked up th j quo'^ti on oi' tho ohiuracter of
Ho'.vc;.rd MoDov/oll, L:.nd on the thrid or foiorth day thorsi-f tor deliv-
ered to him the Hudson o: r. Some tirae thorecfter, and pres\im.^bly
aftor the fir-jt note c-rr.o duo and waa unpaid, Bov/er satiafied him-
self th;-t thi; party to .rhom ho sold the o:.r v/asnot Ho-vard UoDo.'/oll
of Aurora, and ho thon ci uge-) I a oearch tc bo instituted *hioh loc-
ated thia oar in Poori;.. in the poeaeasion of Hanoook or the Louis
'}oyler Corcp-ny for him. Bovvor ol^.imy thot tho oar was obt ined
from hitn by the man who did ^et it by falsely repreaenting hlmoelf
to bo MoDo'.iToll, and that thia oar vfv.Q iiSQnaatxiBxkxvr: intended to bo
delivered to UoDov/ol , ond th;..t the person who got it its deemed to
have comiriitted l^reeny of th-i proper^ under Section 103 of Diviaion
One of the Crimin.J- Code, and that therefore Bovver h^.c the sitme ri^ht
to recover the o;a* from any person in vvhoao poase.-'.ai on ho may find it
aa if it had boon stolen. The proof showed Hancock in •oasesiion as
;..n innocent puroha-ior for full v...lue.
Though plaintii.' doe^ not so tnotify, yet the chattel mor-
tgage v/hich he drovv or c.^uaed to be dr.>.wn on 1-ki.y 7, 1919, and tc be
executed by the puroha.ior, deooribed th.5 purchaser as Hc^ard McDow-
ell, :-Ul Fl.gg St. Aurora, Illinois, and pldntiff must h:..vo obtained
that loo;-.tion fron th^. ourchr.ser. At a later date another man came
to him claiming to be Ho'-vari McDovyell of Aurora, 'vho denied that he
had bought thi;; car, and plintiff testified that it •va;^ not the miM
to .vhom ho sold it. Plaintiff h;.d sent a registered letter addressed
to Howard McDouell . t Aurora and the second man apparently c-mc in
answer to th..t letter. Pl..intiff testified in chief th.-t thir. s -o-
ond man did not bring tho letter, but in rebuttal he to ^tiiied that
that man did bring the letter w.nd that ho himself road it. Plaintiff
t.'^3tified that tho gooond rr^.n al:5C showed hima draft regi3tr...tion
J rd bearing the name of Howard MeDowoi: ^.nd th-t ho then hrtd .. con-
-3-
e- .--'^ ^{-i>vj3 jnifl Jxiee '
beae
. ii.j? i;i!j-jj,7_ JO atfdi Qd ui-i ^.^-cauA ...
ll^iml.' 1 yd :}-i: i-ij^^ ^.-xL oilw iia:« ad* ycf jRtsi aoni
.^auiiil hYJS.^^zt..je»^..<^&h BiJW lao Bld:f iiidi baa ^L£9vo(l^M^ od o*
L,j i,o..isoL al *1 :*• :-r08^»q e;d;t- tijrfj- .rJjOJJ < lovioQcil o* i»t)'ievilti
noxeivjtci lo COX noxovO^- loLm; ■fae^o^q s>d;f ^o y^JSo^TajX l^ed'^linMOo eviii
■30ffw nx nofetieq xn^^KOVl 'juso odit aovdn&l o&
■ XiiiX x.->!t iecr,d&ixt^ taoQonat 'R
..o wexb yii doidw ^gJa-Ji*
ijiix.^I- -c t:idJ cJ-rf^xrcd bxid
rirfxtx.-II .J'x IfXoB jxd iJKwIvr o:
Xli .Ij i,£U: .CXOV.'OCICII i;Xi3W0H o^
-: -i ioido ax LaxiiJ-aet Hjt;toi*,ls" ^laitel tjidt ot lawen;
7-ui' sii L^.t&uder til isjd ^i^tteL vd^ janl^cf ;ton. blh ami Lao
xttial^i'^. :fji 'iXoeraiif od todt baa a9*d-«X c»rf^ jnind WJb «iira-<f^ori:
«o ,d^ &i^d;} baim&ei
-nor ■. ;..-;ii xioiid' iju J. xi.J iui..- liQwoQoii jjaj:.».oIi io ftiuuirr ©d* :<^ni-i..5i'*<f bTt\
vero4tion with tlio sooond man, v;hioh tojother v/ith those docijunents
convinced pl.-intiff th /!-, thia aeoond man \»aa Ho.vard McDowei;', of
Aiirora. This is ^;ub3t. nti .lly .11 the corapetont testimony the i-)l..in-
tiff offered. He did not ccI'l MoDcvell nor prove by him or cny one
th.vt Hovturd MoDov/ei:. lived or did not live ut 'ill Fl^ig^ Street, k\ix-
or... Pluintifl proved th:-t Pi-ttoraon, Pregidont of the Ajaz Motor
Company, l. ooncern in ChiOc^^-o, told pl-dntiff that L.v./rence Ayraa
<Vcc3 the raun -.fho bought fcia automobile, .^ni th:.i.t he, P.tteraon,, hud
been to the home of Ayres and :iCf5rt;xined thcit fact. Plaintiff sent
an invcgti.ntor to Aurora, viho c.me b.ck and ronortei oert;>.in things
to pi. intiff. Neither Pattoraon nor the investigator .vere -vitnoases.
Plaintiff did not at.^te the ijura at ■•■/hioh ho accepted the Saxon c:-r ag
part payment nor did he testify but thi-t he still had the Saxon car
or had sold it. Ho din testify that it afterwards turned out that
the Scixon c.^r bolon;j;od to the Ajax Ilutor Corii'cny but he -lid not Blstattn
claim to l:novr that fact himself nor did he bring any //itness to teat-
ify thereto, T/e did not cl.ira th...t he aacert-ined from Patterson
where AyrsB lives nor th..t he tried to find Ayroa and produce him aa
a •.vitnooj. He tried to introdujj in evidence a letter purporting; to
be signed by Ayrog a^lmitting th..t he was the one who bought the Hud-
son oar, but there was no proof to identify this l3ttor, and it v/ua
incor:;p6tent in ay event, Pl;.intiff testified that he did not aeek
to ..iioert.'in the identity or the fin:.nci;.l rcaponaibility of the pur-
chaser, Plc.intiff tool from the purohajor .^ chattel mortgage upon
thi3 car to aeo-oxo tho notes evidencing the unpaid part of the pur-
cha;3e iiioney, but he did not h.ve hiJ'i i-cknoivledrjo it. V/e took from
the p\ircha:jGr a "oov/er of attorney to Herman Bo./er to ajknov/lodge aaid
instrument for the purchas'sr, but that never of attorney wa3 not aok-
no.¥ledged, nor did the attorney in fact acknowledF;(} the mortgttge.
Plaintiff filed the chattel i^ortgage for record the next d;.y, but
under the statute aoncerning chattel niorts^^goa it h^-d to be • oknov,--
ledged v/here the mortgi.gor resided, and ^vithout ^^uch acknowlodgment
-3-
itnl^Xq i.'St7nlvnoc
-n ■ ',',:'■ r'l
£fev.\)CLc. . : xL bH .Jbassllo 111;!-
^Q&cbl &«(,A tjild' lu oil;. >voiq lliinljii'^ *iio
' iiO fii ni«onoo jj ^ifn-sqinTOD
jjjuii .I'ic tSiidowoji/- cirf tr{'i'.rocf orfw njj« erfS" ejjv
j-nsfi ■^'Tii^iil^X'i ,*cwil niasifioc ;.>t(A lo ©mod axl;t o^ rtsod
• ■ Iteovrri
vDX..a &iii i- -ud •^'^tfcot ad bib loci tnonnfjsq" iiEc;
. i. &M& Y^J^^ee;? i'lb «jH ,tt i-Xoe '^ jx"! lo
no8TC9t ton jjli:; »«? .ocfsierlcf- ^ll
-"(:•• ion pQvlI 89T^A snajrfv
0.+ .isj. ■;■•;-. i.-eli* »H ,caen*Jti» x.
-JawH ' amfA x^ beet^ts &d
\n eflw Gitedt' tssd »*ri;o no8
-"■^i *tii«v» -i^« nl tfte*e<icTOOfii
to •';#l*fisJjl ori* rri;^:ii9aej8 «l*
■'o'ilt ioot tlltftli»X<T .lee^^ti
it o*tcroa8 of sbo eirf:t
ton JbiL 9'' irio
*70 iswi, jria^irq ed^
;^.'lT 10 1 txiaraiji^Cfrl
Ton ^tJ&'gbtLTfo^
if boin -ilittnii-Lt
eAS 'leJbfitf
of th :■ ohi-ttol rnortg:.srQ. There is no competent proof in thia
record th .t the person who bought and took away thia Hudson ocir
wag not Howtjrd MoDowoll of 211 Fli-rrf- Street, Aiirora, exoept th:i.t
pl;.intiff u,fterwurds sent a refiatered letter to th.i.t address and
ajiother man brought it in ^nd ohowod it to plaintiff and showed hira
a registration card bearing the name Hov/ard MoDov/ell ;..nd had suoh
a conversation with plaintiff' that plaintiff concluded that he was
Howard McDowell and not the first. We are entirely clear that most
of the evidence we havw recited vas hearsay and incompetent. The
court sustained numerous objactiona to this testimony, but still
much of it remained in the record, and v/ithout it there was no case
for laintiff . Ho reason appears v;hy plaintiff did not produce Mc-
Do'.'/ell ani Patterson and Ayrea and the investig:;±or. He ./: a allowed
to recover upon the conclusions which he drev; from statements m^-de
to him by persons whom he dii net call as witnesses. V/e do not de-
cided whether plrintiff's vlev; of the law is sound, nor whether a
seller of goods to a strmiger on tine is required to use any o:-re
to identify the 3tran;;er in order to entitle the seller to ret^-ke the
goods from an innocent purchtiser for v.Jue.. Proof of the fiacta should
precede a discussion of those subjects.
Pl;.-intiff ar-rues th: t if the facts are as he supposes them t
to be he is entitled to retake the machine whereever he c^.n find it,
the sraae an if it h>id been stolen, and th.:t question i;3 raised upon
instruotiona. We are of opinion that these instructions should h^^ve
th been refused because no such base had been made upon the evidence.
The judgment is therefore reversed and the cauae is re-
manded for another trial.
Reversed and remanded.
^■^ -1. . i-
■iu.v ■ •iteJtgo'S
;^e:>..' 7..;i3 , .: '.'■Ji' " voOoM JbxawoH
, .;jjs.^-;.o- uc.aoi-'4vo ©dJ- lo
'. ^ 1 d iAr^KiQ Bi-'C'i orator: Lsnijii-ax/a ^tztroo
: j^u-:iJ^ji. -ji'^. Wi; : . u:i/-iiJ»'--i^-!'9- y-fiJ" aoqif -^vocoa o;t
. -' ■; i;oX;fijao Ul ail scf ot
..i ii. 11 :. QAi
.Siioiw oui^axri
•^- ■ ..■■■: -u-r" ;il
I
STATE OF ILLINOIS, )
SECOND DISTRICT. \ ^^- I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.
Clerk of ike Appellate Court.
"■' ■ ' A\
b
3*:
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COU]
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine/hundred and
twenty, within and for the Second District of the State of
Illinois: \ §
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres id/ng Jus t ice ,
Hon. \ JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Jus tile.
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justife.
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk. i
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff, i -^Xty-^^ra* \J tJ i
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
OGi Z'i l9?r: the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
Gen. No. 6884,
Floyd C. Sjh..it't, ..pp8ll>.^.nt,
v;3.
Uii-mia N. Sohwitt, '..p^elloe,
ninnio Htt. Sohir.itt, :.ppollpo,
va.
FloyU. G, :3ohn:itt, appoli.'^nt.
Appeal from Kano,
2191.^^.637
HO-lXd, J,
November 17, 1917 ..ppollunt i;.nd ..pnollee,
/vho ure h-a'jb;-.nd ;,rxd v/ifo, 3cp;..r;^tod -.^nd uince that tine h vo
lived .soperate i^nd ■.r)i:.ct from euob other. Dewember G, 1917 thoy
entered into . written c^tpreoraent thereby thoy t^greed to oontinuo
to ijo livo. The ;;.groemont ./aa lengthy ^,xU ..rnong other t^dngo
proviaod th:~t . ppe" loo shold h..vo tha o:..r3, custody c^nd oontrol
of thoir t'.yo ahildron; ' th...t c-ppollant yhould ouuao to be diach^g
od J. r.iort^fu^o u;ion tho homoate .d v/hich thT/ jointly o./nod; th-tt
title thereto :iho\ild bo put in the children, v/lth a lif - eatatu
in the v/ife, -.in.i thut a.pnell<^nt should pay appellee .^JlOO per monti
in joiiio jnontiily inatallment for tho support of herijeli uai child-
ren, ..3 ion,^ ;i.3 3hG lived or '.intil uho irs-rried. It virc.a iJXao pro-
vided th...t th(5 ■.i^Qament wu3 ms-de v/ithout prejudice to ny right
of a-otion ./hioh either of tho p:.rtiea rmi.y hc.vo to u divorce. Ap-
poll nt^'nin'jH v/ith ;xll proviaiona of th(j -;?^oernont until May
15, 1930.
December 33, 1919 ..ppell;int lil-d hij bill in th:> circuit
court of Kaiie county aakinr for l. divorce on the pruund^ of dcc-
ertion und ueking for tho o;..re, cuatody and control of th;} t,/o
::.ildren. Appolloc filed an anurfer t^ioroto donyinj the denerticn
and in her ana.ver cet up the a[^3roement of Deceubor 8, 1917,
Febru.jry 3, 19;-?0 . ipollee filed a oro.;a bill for ■■—
1 i.
.oK ,floO
'■■■'■' .« alantU
notlfflsvoM
i no ovrt iJterf* lo
.itboaod eci& itc Lo
L Itdv srt? nl Jirq od bhjoda of^XBtit Ql&li
yffl x-Cfi^nom emoe nJ:
>zlj Jc;oLiv
.:felvo:iq LJUi Atttt h'.'nLi!s\Qjij, Src-.XIoq
.Of:ei ,21
/itfiwc o ooTO fntroc; e«iiS !ko ^toxoo
xo Ioi*noc txijc \»i.oJoj. t ro^ jjcl^BJa lurui noi^ae
^? :^nofflo©'x;'>j.; 'jrf* qu ;f»8 aewfcn-. rtnri ni 1
»it1 ©oXIfc •' »S Tf^y^^C"
sopijrate m.-iintoiv-nce aottin.: forth thut aha v?uij livin*^ aepLJuto and
.ap<;rt from appoll.^nt by ro:;-£3on of hi a oxtrerno ^^ni ropoato-i cruelty
to.v.jcd hor and by reason of her digaov.ry tli.it -ppell.,.nt h .d ooin-
mitted adultery,
ThG oro3'? bill ca:30 alle;-ed th..t by re..:;on of th-^ filing
of itppelleea bill for divoroo he h d ropudiutod . .nd brokon auid
agreemout and that in vio-.v of :nioh repudiation and brt-aoh 3ho ol-
eotud to doolarw the ajTroemont at an ond. Appellant anawerod tho
oroj-, bill denying all ch.iTijtis thorc3in jont^inod.
February 13, 1290 appollant by le^ve of oourt filed an
araondod bill of aow l.-int -oharginjj; appellee with oxtr ome -nd r'3-
poatcd jrutjity to ./hich amended bill i:-pQllQo filed a.n .ina^ver deny-
ing/ ull jhaofgoa of oruolty,
Tho oauae wa.'5 hoard by the oo\irt on -^ bill and anawor
and oroaa bill und ;~n3v/iir und evidenoo heard in opon jourt i~nl on
June i, 1930 tho oourt entered u. dearec- dismiaiiing appellanta bill
'. appoll:>.ntQ e03t3 and finding th.-t ..ppelle^; uindor her oroas bill
.3 entitled to aoparcte Kainem^noa from appellc^nt in the deoros
provided for «ujh Separate in;.inton.-noo in uooordance v/ith the nro-
visiona of the a^roemont of December 8, 1917, It v;...3 further pro-
vided that in tho decree th:.t in the event that appellant a:v-,ealod
to the appellate oourt, appellant -jhould pay to appellee V^fea» the
filin;-^ of the dj? ? ol 1 jc" bond he sum of i^a35 for hor aolioitor'a
foea and expense upon appo;il. September 3, 1930 ..ppellant filed
hie bond for nn appeal fron a.-id doeroo.
It is oont ended by appellant that a married .toct. n i :> not
entitled to deoreo of iicnuratc maintenance if at the time ihe iilea
hor bill tjho is living aepiurate and apart from her huaband under -n
equitable fjepar^tion ..r^oeraont, free from fraud, .vl:lch i3 bein^ fully
:rf orraed by him,
-2-
J ejtf ti-^'ii...i.i^ J iii.
-" ^cmZL&qqji tsuoil txatij.
.... -V nicij,!- jiejixodo IXjj anx^fieij I.''
ft,, . '" 03eX ,6X Y^-«^tr^tfo'i
wfiJjL
;cf 3Aii,.
J J 'it/0 1' oS^lLBqci^i adt oi
I
To m.^intuln un vDtion for aeparate m.dntonanco the wife
must show not onJky thut aho haa u gocd o.-Ude for living jep^ate
anJ. i.-p-i.rt from hor h'.i;^u.nd, but iUao th;it such living ^pa.rt w^a
•vithout fu-ult on hor pctrt, A voluntary consenting by her to a
separation, jondtitutes 3uoh f>.Lult .vithin the ir.eaning of the
statute Johnson va, ^Johnson 135 111. 5l0j Dyckor vs. Decker 379
111, 300, Up to the time of filing his bill for dj.vorao ^ppall-
..nt hud oompliwd .vith -.11 th? terms of tho agrement on his >x.rt
to h'^ perf ormad c^nd had ..ppelleo filed hir bill for jop.Lcate m...in-
ten..na9 prior to that time :3he oould not h.ve ta.int-inod it. \7hen
opeli^nt fil3d his bill for livorco and agk^jd for th;} custody of
tho children he in effeot ronudiutisd tin c^ontr-iot and -tviksd for
relief .?hioh v/ouid nulify the ugToement in some of it'-: moat im-
port. ..nt proviiiona. The oourt had jurijiiotion of tho tLrtiea and
^i£*»* 3Ub]J:ect matters ;..nd havin:;; ■-3U0h juriadiotion ttie court had
'ull povvor to do ocwplete equity bstv/een tho parties with reference
to the subject ratter of tho controveray or any matter germane
thereto. Appellant h vinsj invoked the jurisdiction of th.5 court
over the subject matt.r of the agreement by asking reliof from aome
; : its provisions ounnot oompl^-in because the court took complete
jurisdiction over it ^nd on appelleea cross bil ordered him tc
crry out the terms of tho ..;:r,;emont, VHiile this relief i3 not
• rtioul.rly prayed for by appelleo it lalla iTlthinpr the general
\- <i< 4v for relief #»«» found in thi-j cro3;3 bill.
It in contended by appellant that appellee by niiscon-
-uot on her part rr>.;terially contributed to the sopcjfation and th-t
therefore ahe ia not entitled to separate rnainten.-nce, Thore is
c very sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether or not she waa
guilty of uisconduot. The chancellor who atey thd 'ritnesses and h
Xino ion woilc
:f Bit . : .
zeq vri
oi'iq et-
.':Ir- lei
...iOielvoici Brf^l
'n vo rtoitoibei
-Rs "»••*■
he .jrJ. the avldonoe found by the dacroi? thi..t aho .v. j not [jirj.lty
of suoh ifii'jjonduot :.nd we vroidd not be .iustifitid indlaturbin;^
hi a findingg, •
Tho deoree ia affirmed.
.d& br Sri
.esnJtJjnll elrf
I
I
STATE OF ILLINOIS, \
SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^- I. ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk- of the Appellate Court,
m and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
iJ
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the sixth day>6f April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hnndnred and
twenty, within and for the Second District /f the State of
Illinois: I
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres idiJ'g Jus t ice
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justyle
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, Justfce.
ARTHUR. E. SNOW, Clerk./
CURT S., AYERS, She:
219I.A. 638
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
OC I <^ i Y62' ^^^ opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wi t :
Gen. No. 6830,
Ro:.5e Grevo,
A')r)ollee,
'^^* Appeal from Du Pa,g©,
Robert Harris,
Appellant,
Nieh: UI3, J,
219 l.A. 63 8
In this case Bofse Grovo the -.poollee auod the
-ppellunt Robert Harris in the oircuit coiirt of Du FL.^(i county
to r;;»over daraagea for ^.^n alleged broach of -- marriage contract.
There wag u trial by jury, which retjulted in a verdict i-nd judg-
ment for O^'^500 ..zinat the anpell^^nt; and this appeal is r>roaecuted
cor. the jud^ent. The teatiraony of the ..ppellee i3 to the
-aiect, that the appellant, who is a farmer, residing on a fiurm
nc;..r B rtlett in Du Pago county, emoloyed the appellee in IJovem-
ber 1911 to work for hiin as hoi.i:30 Icecpcr; and to help L-bout the
..ore3e on the farm: that 3he continued to ./ork for hira in that
p.\-eity until July 31 at, 1S1?J and that iurinr- the time ahe
-3 in appelli.nt'a employ, he made love to her in various ./-ya
-nd promised oi to iwijrry herj i.lao afterwards seduded her under
the promice of marriage. There ia a .qharp jonflict in the
evidence bet. /-en the t.jf>timony of the .ippelloe, and of the ap-
pellant, ..'ith reference to the jiromiae of marriage, ani ■ he
:ediijtion j1 .imed by her; and the direct •••roof concerning
these matters ia jcnfined t^- the toatimony of the parties to
the oontrovoray; and was largely a ouerjtion as to which o±
theae parties told the truth.
The in..in j-roun.i urged by ..-pellant for reversal of
the judgment ij, that some of the instruct ions giv^.a for the
-1-
.0tl86 .oH .noO
jOVU'iii 88OH
teri'^ uC moil LtseqqA 'BV
ssa .A.iexs
'iinuoo esj^'^ i/Q 'io d"iuo'j tiuorio oil* nl elia^H cfaodoH itn-o I £eqq-u
Jbe*UT • eiri* bfiii {fazLZeqqr, odi iectiss^ 005Ev ^ol *nom
ericf o* si eolleqq. adt lo \noDtitEoi- arIT . Jnemjiiir r. odi noil
mxi'^J ^ no rnliis: r ,i©ra:[jt;l .:> ei orfw ^ittJiLLeq(iJ■: adi' &^di tioelle
-ciBVoK r.t .t LQ-^oLr-" ,Y*niioo 08j3<T sjQ. n2 tJoXif'i/S ^liisn
ori* Jl'- . / Jbn£ j:tQq .il b£ aild lol :;iiovv oJ- IX9I aad
ti;xl:t- nl mlx£ ao^ :faov' ct tbanJtJnoo erfe *^rl;f jmi^ii oxl;^ no eeoaorfc
©ric omit orft sni ! bay. jVieX ,itl£ vIxcL IlJmr Y^-tc-^t.
eY--v. Et/oxxcv ni rer? 0* ovoX ©Luitn orf ^^oXrina B*;tn-;II©acfi3 ni 8.£:w
aoLnf! 'iOii iuCjL'f:' icj'^^" oeX*-: ;a£>rf Yixttit o& to Lenimoicci hn^;
sriJ nx .:i 8it>dT ..:;-".'.-liijjffl lo acicioaq edi
-qji orfJ lo bnc ^roLleqc^ odif lo y;nor. di- nacv.jtQd eonsLive
©rl i.n^: t -r lo eelfflOTq sriJ o;f ecnoiB'Hii rfitlv. ^rfri^XXeq
;ini;n'. .caoo looac' Josixi. »ri* i/n-e joitiii vd botnl.iLc nojt:tcrrb8e
o;f tiald-a.uq ecLt lo x^omiii:.o& ©rit o* beni'inoc til eio:t*£m sbsri*
io dctdv o,t Bfi nciJ-KfJi.; vlarixiX eiJW Lnis jYJii&voicfnoc od;t
.rfd'x/ii' &di^ blot uiit&i:(^. ororii
:o I..e7svoa 10 i cJ-noi-IIo . , irvo-rrr in^toT^ nliiw orfT
u-ppelloe didnt not corr ;otly state tho 1o.m; and th -t oth.ra
./hiJh in eficot iireotod ;i verdict ivnored rnu.terial tuot^ in-
volved in tho controversy, which were relied upon by him _a a,
iQiensc to tho ;i.otion. The inatriictiona v/htoh were -pointed
out ^3 orroneoua are No, 3, No, 4 ;.nd No, 5 ?lven lor the
::-ppelloe. In Instruction No. 3 tho- jury were toli, th.^t if
thoy believed from a preponderance of the evidence, thut the
appellant entered into u contract of a^jreament to itiiixry the
appellee, at the oxniration of three yeara; and that at the
expiration of throe yeara the a^^po'. lee requested the appell-nt
to marry her; and that the appellant "without iudtif i..ble -luuse
failed and refused qo to do" that their voriict should bi for the
plaintiff, Ther > i^ nowhere in the instructions -ny definition
of what i3 meant b • ju:jtii:'i.blc cause, P.'hat wou3d be justifiable
cause for ;i f;.iluri3 or refus-l to carry out :.- marriap;c contract
is question 1-w; but under this instruction it W£i.3 left to the
jury, to determine what wo Id be, or wcild not be justifiable
oauae; -nd the instruction ./..;; therefore erroneous* La Porto v,
Wall..o^?. 89 Ill.Aj)p!bl7; Br.^dloy v, Schrayer 304 Ill.App. 331:
Sexton V, Barrie 103 111.'. Appa,586,
Instruction No, 4 completely ip;nore3 the alleged set-
tlement .;hich the appell.Lnt cl ..imed he m^de .ath appellee concern-
ing her cau:30 of .ction, and .vhich he relied on as a defense.
Under these circumst^.nces it .Jag error to f^ive the instruction,
Moonoy v. City of Ohic fro 33& 111, 414; Parttid^e v. Cutler 138
111, 504; Pr.-nte v, H...rtm...n lo8 111, App, 393;^.
In;3truction No., o which relates to tho damages ia alaO
erroneous, inasmuch aa it learns it ^.o the jury to fix a iamages
any .3um /hihh they may think .v oper. A jury should be guided by
-3-
oo ^on tRLlb aoXXeqc:.
,oM ^i. ,oH an^ bvooao'xio a^^ iv
ii:j :ciebnociviq- a moT^ bsvsllod xoxi;f
Qi' y.o 9rft 0*- ^QoXIeqqB
j-n- -iqx©
r . -. .... 1 . . , , .1
^olioisi&Bni odt Li:
X piaxwS |V no;txd8
-«^»onL ^ riolrfv ;fnemaXJ
.QE^ : ©rl rioixlw i>n^ ^noi:fc ; ri
,nojt;foifaJt. oe&djf a6i>r"
. . .XXI eaX n- .V' Qid.-i'xR ihOS ,XXI
■■J bottj rorfe Yoi/f; . -;od:t rfdidv. nu/e y^
the eviionoe in arriving a.t the amount of the damagea, the same'
L-s they ;3hci£Ld be oonc ^jmin^i- ny other m:;tter aubniitted to them
for detsa-rnination.
It is ul3o contended, th:^..t the couxt erred in the re-
fu3 1 of oert.in in^tructiona requested by the appellant, aame-
ly r(3iuued inotrctions 1 und 3^ These inatruotionu have refer-
ence to oertain principles to be ;. foliei in determing the credp-
it tv- be -•';iven to the toatiraony of //itneasea, and have reference
o-lao to the impeaohraent of ./itncoaea. They are aub.'^t to the
objection however that special attention I3 called to the evid^
enoe of the appellee by the use of the personal pronounj they
also i;ive undue prominence to the teotirnonj'' 01 Fn.nk Joalyn,
AlCred Shieldfjand Herman ^Vnezel n.i arc objectionable for that
rccLaon. Tanner v, Cl:-.pp 13'J 111* App, 363; './right v. Bell b
111. App. 3J3; J. & S. E. Ry Go. v. W.^lah 106 111. 3o3j Hewett
V. Johnaon 7: 111. 515; H:.toh v. M.rsh 71 111. 370; Bro/m v.
Munaon 51 111. App. 488. Rex^ised Inetrotion No» 3 .vaa proper-
ly refused, becauae there ia no eviaence upon .vhich to back this
inatruction.
For the errora indictted, the jud^-itient is reveraed ;xnd
the (jauae rem-.nded for .mother trialj •...ni ina inuch -^a the caae is
to be triad apjain, we refrain from diaouaasing the questiona raia-
ed oono^irning the wei£3;ht or effect of the evidence.
Reversed and rem nded.
merit . . :i biirodi- Y^df
,noxd-i..fiI.- ■ lO'
■^ GeXqlonliq nlii^ibo oj^ ovai
aoneae^si av.. .; "rrrn.'i ..aoiali-eo* orl* oj" novl^ scf ..J- J-J
nrlj- o-' ■'■'X'- .Boi.v.rntiri !to d'Xiojnrioiieqini ©rit of Oelu
Ijisiooqe fjjri;f navdworf xloi;tO0{;d(
YQdJ inr/ono7rf I.-ncc'rcr^ oil* *o obu odt Yci" t^e-CXsQcri: ©rf* ^o oom
^£Vt':Zr. oT, . . f-t srlt o:f eononiraoiq 9t;Lm} eviy obXj
c -il. . . ■^rA ♦in GfiX qqjjXO .v :toixn*jT . o:
li&euoH iU.t . ■ . . '; yJT .:5 .r: :fS .L [Siill .q^A .IT
.V ;.v.o'i^^ ,(;'^t . :v riBX:.!' . . :iT TT noenrfOL .
-'ts- .oK nol*oa;t-8«I Jbee .._ . ._ ..:.CI 16 nOfeXit/l
eii. ..oqir oon&bivtt on Gi oiorf^'oG;/ .laex/^ei Y*
.noi;foijiienJ
i orit gflxe£etroaiJb moal dtj:iTiti: . od
) '• , \
STATE OF ILLINOIS, (
SECOND DISTRICT. f ^^- I, ARTHUR E. SNOW, Clerk of the Appellate Court,
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this 12th day of October, in the
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty.
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
/H^ /h,
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the six^ day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand ni^ hundred and
twenty, within and for the Second Dis^^ict of the State of
111 ino i s :
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pr#s iding Jus 1 1 ce
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, ^stice.
Hon. OSCAR E. HEARD, justice.
ARTHUR E. SNOW, Cle^*.
CURT S. AYERS, She/iff,
2i9l.^-^^^
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
■■'i/T 27 TQOA ^^^ opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit
Gen. No. 68'^9
Edwiurd J. Bcjnrlck i^nd
V/illi-ra G. Hanneyi
Appellees,
V3,
Appeal from City Court
Spring Vulley C0..I Company, Spring Valley.
Appellunt.
2191.^-^^^
Niehaua, J.
This suit vvas oorr.inenood by the ii-ppelleeso Edaard
J, D.i-mrick ;*.nd '»V. G. Hanney 0.3 p..rtners, L-g.^inat the .^ppellc^nt,
Sprinfv Valley Co.a Company, a, id Joseph F. Kimbor, in the oity
court of Spring Valley, to recover a-ma,jf;ea for the injury to a
atook of mershaniiae o.med bv the j-ppellees, Cv.uaed by smoke
30ct, 'ifhicjh came into th.; premises of the a-^ elleea in conaequeno
of ; lle,:j,x;d negliirence of the appellant ^..nd Kinber, in making re-
pairs on -^ ohininey, by vfhieh the chimney hai becomeclO:;<i-ed up.
The declan.tion alleges that the defendants emoloyed pcrsonsa
to ropv. ir u. oortain chimney; and that the repairs were 30 eare-
loaaly I'ade that the chimney became stopped up, and in consequence
thereof, when the api^ellant .^iade a fire in the heatinr atove on
its promises, the smoke therefrom, got into the store -^nd premis-
es of the ..ppellees instead of ,L?;oing up the chimney, ..ni th:-t
thereby th'.i .;;oodu and merch.ndise wer.; injured, Tho case was dia-
miaaed a; to the defendant Kimbor, There .i.^a ^. trial by jury,
which resulted in ;- verdict and juigmont for ^"^500.00 ..giinst the
ppollant. This appeal i;5 proaeouted from the iuifment,
Thi^ evidence showa, th;.t the appellant ovmed i.nl oc-
cipied a t./o story brick building on the north eust corner of St,
Puul and Sp-.ulding Streets in tho city of Spring VEley; and that
M joining the buildin: of appe:i:..nt, there was a two tory brick
uuilding, owned by lilrs. Mury Devlin, >/hich <yaa occupied by the
-1-
0S88 .oW .aaO
.Jn^IIeqqA
^^^•^.lexs
b-ir,MhZ t-'cesIXeqq;; e^IJ YCf bevaemmoo v^\. :M0£i elxIT
^jfn. .-I&qqi oiit taata-^^s ^eieni'xs.q 'c.a yenruiH .0 .V/ Lnii 3£oJLaia.uS .L
Y^io erii' ni jiocfmJtJf ."? dqotioX, I -; ,YnjiqrrioO Ij.5oO yeXLuV aaliqS
•^ Oo \ id" ro'i do-^i^^L tluvoo^i ot jYS-^-f-^'V gnliqS lo cfuroo
iJ- (i ijsnwo 8eli)nj-;rioa.em lo ^fooi-e
rne.'jpsurfoo ax i^e . t ^0 eeaimaxq udi otnt onuic riold* «^oo8.
.11 bm^ ^njilXeqqii edt lo sonoalXsen L8s»XIji lo
.q - jtinxrlo ad;}- rfoidw ycf ^xoxixaldo ~ no eniijq
.3 einsibn&liab edi it-odd- eegaXX^ nol^i;iijXo8L orfT
-ea-.o 08 870W 8iJti:q©a edi t^^di Ln^ (Y&miiixlo nii^o^roo o zlsiqei oi
eoflstrpesnoo nl bn~B ^qu JbsqqoJe emsv&d y;Btmldc .^rlJ f.:di ebju^.i YXeeeX
no &vo.+ e , niJjieri srfcf nl stril £ sL^.' ;tn>,. XXeqqj^ orI;f nodv/ t^oeaotiJ-
-eiMoaq laj^ &io*8 od* o&al (tog jmoalftaeri* 8:fo«e s£l;f ^eoelmoiq c;fi
Itijd* in «Y©nmlric e,dt qu j^.nloji lo Jt>jse?8ni: eseXXeqq^ edt lo bq
-Bi. .^eiur.ni t^"i5v.' ©eii/fi^^iloasni Lnjs eLoo^i edi y^&^»^^
»Y^k;(; Y<^ -i^i' dT .asdml}! tnjtiLn&lsi> odj- 0* uj3 Jjeeaim
6rf;t Jtni :, 0' .Oocr-: lol d-n^mgi-ix/t Jbfli: iotb'x-:.v ni LeJIijE:j:i dcldw
.d-ns/fijii/f Qdi moil LscfuoRSoriq Jt I &qqj^ eXdT .j-n-tsXXeqqjs
-00 Lnu Lenv.o tn^: C£sitfq:: fjdj- ;ti;dl tBWoxie eonoLiv© axfT
,t?. lo zenio: if.ru >:oi'icf xiQ:^e ov. t .; Laxqlo
*££l* JjXi-u {Y»-t-CliV gn : Y*lo edt at e*osi*3 gnlLXur.qB Lnx> Xjju<7
i^oiid YOiot ovi:t x. ejiw ©a^d^t ,*iiiiXI«qqi) lo ;f,nli;XXnc/ adi gnlnlotJb.
Qdi Yd Lelquooo bj^a xlL,idw .niXvea y^-M .eiII y^ l;onv.o ^-gatbltv.
i • »
lippelleea, and uaed by them ua a store; :.nd in whioh they hud a
stock of raeroh:.ndi:4e for 3:.1g. There is a party .vail between
the tvo bijiildings, in .rhioh thore aro three ohimneys; u ohimney
designated a3 the middle ohimney, - south uhiraney, and a north
chimney. The north chimney reached down to the lower story of
the two buildings, and was used jointly by the occupants of the
buildings. The appellant had a heating 3tove in it3 building,
which connected ./ith the north chimney; the appellees also had
a heating stove in their store ./hich w.-s ulao connected '.vith the
north chimney. In March 1910, the appellant employed Joaiiph F,
Kimbor, to put a ne.v roof en it'j buildings; to remove thti tin
roof, -vhich wafj then on, and instead put on a p^roid paper roof.
The evidenjo tends to show, th^-t after Kimber had removed the
tin roof, he discovered, that the chim.noys v/ero defective, ..nd
heeded repair -.vork, A man by the name of Ifci-ssa was thereupon
em-loyod to repair the chimneys; annd the testimony of himself and the witnesses
Muerohison and Orgel, is amply sufficient, taken by itself,
to Justify the judgment; and so, the suhstantial question
is whether the eyidence introduced on behalf of the defend-
ant sufficiently orercomes that on behalf of the plaintiff
to justify tts in concluding that the rerdict of the jury was
manifestly or clearly wrong. After a careful analysis of
the STidence we feel hound to answer that question in ths
negatire. The plaintiff was a motor truck salesman and went
ts work for the defendant on February 1, 1916, and on Sept-
ember 25, 1916, his ein:>loyraent relations with the defendant
were set forth in a letter, of that date, which was addressed
to him by the defer? dajit company. The letter and its parport
ars not controverted. It prorided that he should receire
a salary of $50.00 a weak and a commission of two per cent
en all retail sales "that are sold at list price or at a
l-ift,fm
j,.!-«F« o \, i -^ v — .-.t. *«.' . .-.kiV.'
■ . i .?. ./ rt X , !€• , S ©V^ 1 c
prlo« thfti nwft InoIuAiag th* «*!• •r ••oon«i )wii« truoUt,
!••• Uum 15;ji ftff from list prieff". (a) tiMi iw «t»uXd rw
o«iY« ** ttMMsitsion of 6tt« |^«r ovnt en idl truoks »oi4 t*
Vationnl U««r» Mr <ijtu»ntity Oiitrt wlu» rjt* <;iT«n « ditoouiit
•ff fro* li»i pri«t thai n«ts •!•••* itooft fift«*n f«r o«iit
eft tram Xiai pri9«*« (3} ttwt he sliiiaA re^MlV* » M««i.»sioa
vtmi Hi* ftalM r«««lM4 "» lA«!g«x> toIuma thM» Hoo»OCC>«00
of 1|( on oaIoo UMt oricimaiy vers fiaur«4 at « 2j( oo»>
AisKiOBt nja4 1/9 of l^ GB K*tienal Uoors &oX«e that not uo
loon tiina 15)S off froM Hot prioo^d Miu (4) taat tht ojitara
MMKioftioaii W(<ro to 1m jMki^^ 1/9 «ji ooon o« tbe crons aaloo
r«««lio4 #lco«OCC*00« ih« ^laiMioo wlMn tlM srooo ooloo
ro»«ho4 liattOOO.OO, but »XX oxtm oonsaoslotto to >m poid
wlthlB 0B« x^MUTa HBdl ftlX r«iiEttXoY ooaawloolOBo to bo p«i4
■OBthX/ OB buqKi tTUQko fto hovo iMftOB 4ollvoro4 orU 9Aid for*
Ttao plaintiff merkntA under th» eeatroot uBtil «ub« X8» X9X7*
8lo work, oooerdlBs to his tooilMonigrt wnd which Xv not 4eniod,
mui to oolX §\x 7h truoko bo had \woa Xietod to him oo a pros*
pootf or ottoh BO ho "dufl up* or vrhioh w«r9 fiXod ond on whiah
ho Bodo r«?&rt« to tho offio0« 7ho dofoBtent kopt a obtA oftd
foXlow>if RjrotOB of porooaaX <»lXo« toXtrphono onXXo V tho
ooXooMBn, Xottoro roooiYOd and tho oubotanoo of letters writ*
ton hr tho dofoBdani, i« faot» a ooapXoto rooord* Tho aaotor
oard BBO ftXS, and ooBtaiBOd tho bbbo of tho proopoot, tho
41otriot» tho bbmo of tho pwr^MMiBS acoBt of tho obo who wao
XiahXo t« War. tho noBo of th* o«XoaMafl to wmbb the proopoot
BOO aofii«BB4, alX of tho oaXXo of tho oalooBOB, vhothor ^
toiophoBO or othorviaB. aad, bo toatifiod to )gr tho witBOOO
■BBTBhiaOB, who Im4 ohargo of tho ajrotOM, a ooBpXotn ahotraot
•f Bhat BBO dOBo iB oBOh aaao. It vbo tho aothod of tho 4o»
fBBdaat thBt OBOh proopoot ahouXd ho hoBdlod onX/ Iqr tho ono
1'fcff
. 4
i« wTioa it wum •» i«a«d, T)»t was pnljr Tarl«d Igr scmm t»«olal
thre)ji8to njft4 a s«l« olo»9<i, it w»s ihtr aastMi of th« 4l«f«iid«iit
%• «iT« «r«4it to tk« MiloaaMUl wi« Jtma hau olmrg* of tlut
9r»«|^««t* #»•« %hM 4«t« on th« Oi:ird«a Mnor^ viui mi4o out
fyow ti«o t iiao tyyowritton »«mofius4* of proopvotivo pyuFm
olMiooro iui4 the 4Lmf% upon i»>iioh onlla •taeulfi be fluido, mmI
tJooAO ^•mormnim wer« j^l«oo4 oa tho deako of Vm oaleieMoa
to wltoa th« p«rtioular proopooto iMiloiKKOd. ^snpiig th4» oajrdo
woo Ano of tJM TiMTOtii TooMiac dMipMqr. TIm witaooo lliMnroUaoK»
kMwft otoMcroptior and in eAuifSKO of t)i4^ oajrAot oa/c that ate
r«o»Il.tt thai 010*4* tti»6 thai alto Lo&ara Crane* iho is&taig;«r«
Civo 4ir*atioa£ t<* %im jpladatiff in rat^nrd tc^ the Tiasreth
Toatainc ^umMatsrt ^^^ ^* ^^ >^^ «^ ^^3L<lb be ttouIc t»sr to
tho jaeintlff "Icoep after t«t?» liothftnroll** '♦^i'lmt hfere you
j<M»»rd about &h> Ti^aroth deoi?'': tlmt H«! va:^ oontimaaXly oagr*
iag Ihftt tm\ oaXllag him in tma wekina )aim vliet h^ tmji hoard;
th<!;ta to K<^r )a»vtlm4^t ao ordor oao ever siTon to take tho
44if«adttat off tho TiMtroth proo^oot.
Tho vitaooa OrgoX* who «aa at ooxle thore ma a
otoaoiprayhor aad had* ia part* at X«»aai» ohaj^o of tho
oard ayatOM* oorroboratoa tho foraar wltaoas, &ht oar*
that ahoa thor« aaa anor oonfliot ao to a proopooi tho
aattor would b« takoa uy and atrali£htoaod out anci th« aaloo*
m&m givoa appropriata woiMraada to atop oalliac, oto.; thai
aho nvTor oroto nor wao dir^otod to arito to tho plaintiff
vit^da tho tlMO ia ^uootioa oa tho Tiauroth or Worth Mtor
Sorvioo doali that in Majr or Juao, If 17, a fow wookt boforo
tho ylaiatiff loft* Orwo took out tho naotor oard in thi
TiAvath Toaaiac Co.* aattor aao aaid aoi to lot tho plal»»
tiff sMr an/ ^tsmtr »*! -*> o-»&u t;y:* it ual'jwr. h*,-, ;r-"Wite toaJs
ii a» witii hia, ;lli« fUft^r »iAi«4 th^i in ti««- f4Xl of
1926 th» 9l^lM%ift vm%t into Cr»n«*t 9tnm mtkrlf mrmry
niclvt »))«at th« tisrotb or w^rth a««l« in t«^lk it cvor;
tiMkt •'Hf ofi«a In th« &9iri)H4t •! 1917 » lk»%r<i Jrane t«Il %}»
j^lAiatiff to §«t tn te«^ with tfe« Tlitiwth deal w> tfe^t It
Muld ki« <Am9Wk* Orikn* a<)feKiti«4 on «re»«««!X»K)la&tion th»t
to, lda««Xf • h«4 iL«fti|e»«4 this limx^th prt^p^ot to the
9l«iAtiff« rhtiTi!^ wut pttt i«i •ri'6»no« \f^ Um plfrlntlff ,
lhiri«93i li»t8» vhi«h }m4 '^•tm gXram him b«tif#«A s«>t«Ml!»«r
'M, 1916, fm^ iivijf 24 « I91t, of proapftotlTtt t>u7<ahft«9r«« «nft
«f v^iah x»M timrmXh. f»»\ins ^a, ?h9 plaintiff titstifi«<r ilutt
the ^isKTOth pro«>39ist »a« aat t4a«iiign«4 ^<vtwi<:''n S«|)tftn^r 99«
i91i« ami Jun« 1&« 1917» to «in,3> otH«r »«il«»WRn. Th« «t1«
iit«a«« is 0T«rw)i#li«diit th^t t}»e ?inintifr «sli«<li u,9«f) th^ir
latt«ir co:i»psny « «:r<mt ^sanjr ^ia«?«!J !,'.j]»teaib«r 26, i«to1f#r li,
Oetftbtr 17, ^4«rt«1»»i' M4, 0«t»lf»r SC, ?foT»!idl»«r 17, toTaa^fr 21,
Ji«*«eilM»;r &, 1916, »nl Janunory 6, 1917, %ii<i «n4ei!»v«r«4i to ir«t
it to imrahftn* trucilrft #r I'ht^ (S«f«7!s4Hnt, al8«« th&t he coli«it«
«4 tH« o«(»|»«iny After it A«4 ottuts^td it» nftsr^, Th« Timreth
t««mine 'JitmpisMgF wft« (r>rig«^Rift«4 1tgr r^ f. ^rth, urne mkc itn
jprr»ic«jt, is Martds »r April, If 14, tuati nloeut ,*J«ir«h, 1917,
it» n«Kt wtif daan«iKl t» th« ??*rtli «»t«i' rwmri©'^ 0»«>ftay,
tia? ?ii»r«t«» f««ni»« »ii»«!ar fe«« H»ttr»»* •<«»«^ tnicao, at i#»»t
fiix* In Itttreh or >ipril, 19U, fr«« thn «iof«arta«t o^m^taqr,
Tittroih waf Vine Presia^wt tmi i»rms^9r of th^ Ti«r9tb fnamm
&ag OMq^any until he r«iKignftd in Jfmmry er y^fbrumtr, 1917*
mmt 90B9«33y >»id tic offio* in the Clct '«lonar BiiiXdinic iin<i n
lpftV*«;e out OR Oarroll eronwe, Ti»»roth hod chare* of th*
pt'&atiaAl affair* aa4 offiuftd at. ti5« garago, wlioro tho
tTttoktt woro kopt, Cn Doovwilior 22 or S3, 19ie, n fiTO eoeurro .
m% th« Tiaarotla 7<»alB£ adaqpaajr** ^i»9«« ijuea thm ¥l«rotli
t#«aliic OoapMar «m er««mti«<& in March, 1914 « it liewi&Ki six
th« fir«« B«ti>««ii Steroh »• «a«i ^£ji^ 19 « 1917 • th« d«f«adaai
•wqpaflyr sola t«n trucks %c ttket mrth M0tor 0«rTi<3#< Cum^^y*
TlM alMir« i{»«ntion«<l it«a of |793«91 iu U10 mmiinuion vhi^h
%hm |»lftXRtlff aiisilttM h» 1» <mtil.l«4i m on ih# s»l« of ttauM
t«n truak». Wrth totttified tSiat I^Im ^laintl^f did ma t ••11
tJMM} that h«», ^orth* hR.4 ih« n«g^ti«ti«itt(i wjlt^ Cr«n« of
th« di«f«iiuftnt ooiq^iiagr •tiortly «tttfr th^ flro 1» D«e«»til3«r 29,
X91ft$ tikMt Mo o«a» <HM>^ys« Wtortta.. «»■ iM>x1cl«g for th« dofmUk
flort «t U»t tin« mid talked to Mia about It, Imt tt, 1« tho
eirideooo of Soor^o fortte %l*at hi> l«ft th** d«sf«nidi5j3t Qoe^«^r
about F«bru«jry 15, 1917, nn«5 h»«? only «©yk#d thpre tr«m
^otobor 9, 1916, and »0 on«<^ of th« trac^o vab oort^utlly oold
until oithor ftOM« tiau» iit yobruf cy or attreh 3, 1917, «C4
fttrther, tko^Ofoing; to th<» tcotimongr of Oroito, thr prl^•i dont
of tho tlof«iidRftt osmprntifjii, thot '^roopoot mn «osigfi«{i t^ tho
plaintiff, «b4 lag» «oi^o<t on it isisei^uoualjr froa i(Opt«Kb«r
2«, 1919, up to anii inol^^ding tb« tiiB« whoii All ton w«r«
aotually oold. :^ano, himiolf, tontifioa ttet tho jilitiA*
tiff taUcod «itJa hlK about tta* Tiaroth T«aiii«c Ownyaigr ••
a proapootlYo purohaoor in tho firoi «««k in /aniHunr* 1917*
Aaalysa4 oarofully, it i» to bo oboorred fr«m
tho tootinoaar of Oratto, that lie olaime that Worth, th« fathor«
bomsbt tho truoko throu«£h Ma, Crao*. with th« uiid«>ratan4iat
botvoon th» oldor Worth and Orano that there a^^uld be no oo»»
Miooiono ohars^^t or a» ^orth. tho eon vae vrorkiag for tho
d43fehdaiif . any ooamisaion due hlM should b« waiTOd aad that
m» boiwoon Carano and ¥orth« tho oldor* there ohould bo a»
<*Te^c ''»jST
•.ffiaUialtcki)
«a««««n In •« Um ikmUt Cr«iMi*« ttmtimon/, tit«n, if it
#«%«ia.iHi^« nuisr UiM^* is t« tK* •ff«ot thnt, <hOtt«ii Im
)ife4 asaign^ct th« 9ri»0epot i« the ptadatiff , mm Admits ih»t
ih« i»lAanUfr ««rk«d fer « long ti0» en i%, ana lathoogh
hfi d»#ft iM>t olfii» 4h«t It ^--Ki r«^;ularly tak«it fro.^^ him be*
for« ftxiy ««tl0 \nk» »»d«» jr^t, iiiMMttioh «« h«, (&:«««, «««
Worili, i^e «ld«r, Msa th« timake w^r* »old» an h« oXai,a»(
lay hifiui«Xf • with tiM ft»r<iftt«ito« of worth. th« eon, «h6 l«ft»
lipwrr^r, 1»«f«r« the firist 9f th« t#n truest; m* »ol<a« and,
a« It ws« uad«fsrto64 tlmt if tiier«r w*r«p najr «oei»i i^ttioim th«Qr
»houId V* O0n«i4«'r«il urn ««ni«d Iggr W»rtkt tli« xtmi, ^nu not
iUMurg«d» th* pleiintiff i» »«t «ntitX(»4 to majr^ oc^oaXtfvion^
JVmt wh«it ^ao-tieulisij' iMflu^BCo* &ikd »ll th&t wliitih fiit»>lly
aulMin&\.«a iB 9«r»yia4iB«c tii* \iiorth m$»r Q«TWi<$e CoHpwny to
bujr «« do not yooitivoly and oon^l«toijr koo«» nor is it
noo«o»*xy* It imiiit %t ooiisiattr«id fts « praotioal mmk not a
»oUt|>i^«i«*l •ituAtioA* la wm<M «t ooifiiMMiraiol oituAtioa and
giToa %iM »Yidoft<»a tliat was |»r«tt«nted to th9 Juyy «• tiievB
%9r tiM reoord* WaariilK la niad tl»^t it ie tMtelttod that
tho prospeot iws ^T«a to the j;»lftiatlff , «kiid oot d^mitd thst
for awnt^ ho Miy)eo4 aosidMOttsXjr itpoa ii» itad that fiii«dl/ t«a
tmoko ir«r« sold. v« do iiot «t ail f««i oariouoljr porauadad
that the trordiot waa wroais* lot alona, e}.«ajrljr wroa$»
Tiiojra io ««»« t^m%%jmwff \y both tho vortha a« to
eoaT«rs&ti<sas «lti> the plaintiff ooi^o«mif^ hlo oont^ifcioaa*
%'h.iQh, twQvrvar, Ir denied 1^ tlM plRintiff» and ao it «ac
ftu^lttad, with all ta« oth<rr (STidar.oo« ti) t}i« jujry* «« do
net eonaider it «ub e2wng&i3g th^ ocaolucion already acncunood*
40 te th«t it«» of $X0&9*76s» Tha «iritt«n pYoaisfr 1^
tho dofandaat ia th« lattar of ^aj^toabar 2», 19Id« aaa ao
m8»
follows: "We will agree to gire you a further eommiseioa
w}:ien your sftXes reach a larger Tolume than #100, 000, 00 of
1% on sales that origiaally were figured at 2% ooaaiissioa,
and 1/2 of 1% on Vational Users* Sales that net ue less
than 15^ off froxa list price*** The contention of the de«
fendant ia that the sales of the plaintiff did not amount to
|100>000«00« It ie adaatted that the plaintiff did sell
trucks to the amount of $65,656.57 between September 25,
1916, and the time he left, outside of the ten trucks which
were sold to the Worth Motor Service Company. The plaintiff
claims that he is entitled to be considered as haying sold
also the ten trucks amounting to i|33,796«77, which would isake
a total of #104,453.34. As we hare announced thf?t he is
entitled to be credited with the sale of the ten trucks,
there remain the questions (1) did the net price realise
more than Bb% of the list price, and (2) did the amount
of the sales of the ten trucks make his total sales, subject
to the premisii of the defendant to pay an extra one per cent
eoviissioB "reach a larger roltme than 1100,000.00"?
(1) The plaintiff testified that the list price
of six, was $4400.00 each, and that the sale price was
M705,00 each; that the list price of the remaining four
was $4300. 00 eaoh and that two of them were sold for #4805.00
each, and two for $4905,00. According to the plaintiff, the
total list price was |45600.0C and the total sale price was
♦47,650.00, Taking the list price at $45,600.00, 85^ of it
is 138,760.00, and if we then subtract the total deduetions
claimed by the defendant, that is #8,654.&5, from the sale
price of #47,650.00, there is left #38,996.75, which more
than equals Bb% of the liet price. Further, obTiously, the
selling price actually exceeds the list price as to eaoh of
^>
til* t«ii tntoics, VlMtlMnr or not the plAlnUff «mi «RUtl»4
to Acqr «fi«Ntti»»lo» purirauhAt to %m f>xii«i»« in th« Ivit^r 9t
1H^Um3imr 89 » 19X6 • ttu»t 1»ft d«t«ir»la««jL ■ittply l>y oGamirins
th« ••Iliii£ yriiKi'Mid th« llet prie««
iniftt th« 4«f«iuiaiit titter •«lliiig •«oh of th« t«a
truiicB, eiiteh «t a ocrt&in prioe« ««w fit t& s&iUee YArlcu0
«i«duciXeii« f«r fr«ig;hi» hoivit, cto. oou.ld not 7«iii»on«Uly
%« QonKld«r«d in dAiejmiaiag «i}i«ither o:r not ih« mitt of
th« t«n tru<ic» w«r« na<l« ftttlNit«iiitif»Xiy titrovMib th« f»ffort«
•f tlw piftiatifr «ui(i, tii«rf)for«, «i3«ilH»r <ir aot )»• Juad,
Xttgftll/ eon«i(i«r«<l« Mum«<i o«Hi-^i»i;ioii8. it ie eTca Qtt«»»
tiemibl* «k«tte«r \lm ii9teni&n% vac «ntAtl<»4 to emicft ausgr
dv^ttotioaii fr«Bii th« »«iliati; pric« la ocaaputing th« oosmi**
»toae •aim«<i tmd»r ifek* writt«a prooisc of th<s <i«f«flUant}
Ml* hBv«T«r, deduotiOBs ««r« mi^ile umA oonsid^rttd bjr the
juxy, cmd no •ro»8r»«rrttr ie MtftiinKOfi th«r« is no grouiid
OB tlMt toor* for eur oitemiiinis the verdiot.
SKI tise »ftio ol tli« ten truokn sunko th* %<»UtX
mXoo tt^'th^ plctlatiff r<»aoh the total ouift of $l&0,00€«0€t
It i» a(t»itt«d tlmtt out«id9 of tJM ttalo of th« t«a tiucdco*
tJM i>laintiff ftoid #66,«&«*ft7 «»rt^ of truokn* if to tiuit
io addod 156, 990. 7S, to «hi<3h latter «>i,ount tho ^lulatiff
lo ontltXod to eredit on bio grooe oaouat of saXf^a* wo
t)*vo on ottovuit in oxoeoo of 1X00, 000* Ci€>, oDowinc tli&t li* mto
entitled to %hn oxtzm ooflMission of one por isont* TIM tot^iA
anount io #X0««4M«9S, and tho ecmwiooioa of on« p«r e«at
ttoieon ift #X046»58« '£his aooount is. th^rmtor^, $84, 34,
odaittod 1)y tito pXoadiaco, $779*99, boing two pnr oont on
|S9,995,75. eund »X04d«S3, b«ifif; one per mnt oa tX0«,6SS^.33,
BMtkins ia aXX #19X(:.38 Tbo Judfiioont aftor ttao roaittitur
•10*
«»• |1635*M. It vUl 1N« «•«»• t]»er«for«» ttet it is ii««d»
d«dttction«, wa&ui*lia4j to |3tae«c^, on (»eoou»^ of lh» P««rl*««
Trudi. QyMMi»B«jni»t«in Tznaciks, CT«rl(Mi<i ooup* and L««»l«iid«r»«
a«i th« coswtlBcioa on thfft to til »aaount woulu l»« 3,e»» tii«a th«
diff«r«no« ^i»«tii«oa tlw Ju4g»i«nt ftad the tfu» of ^1010*S6.
Cem^lAlSi i« »A«© of tte» rwfttotti to «$*▼• t»© in»
etruotioas for th© def«nti»nt, Xhoso proffer** inetruotionft
uiid«rt«k« to toll tho Jurjr «ii»t to 4o in m,»9 ix l>«linroo
tliot tlio "mjtth Motor Seivloo Coa^Majr *irt>ul«S not bovo Wugbit**
or ■wouXiA not iM&vo puroha««4 *» any actor trttoke from ti»
Aofoailftiit "ootoopt tJarou«h lt» jftfewmor" or *freio tiw? uofeoA«»
ant tJurotttOx tlio plsintiff*, wfe»r»»e tta© oniy ^ueiiiion »»••
ao reoltoU In aok ijuttniotioii of th* dofeaUAnt th»t v»o giTon*
iroro tho s&l<?» of tbe truc^c^ iBaa4e thrcvx^h th* offortB of tlio
pLolatlf f or ti»« 4«f«n4«at» Tfarea in£.truotloiui »er« glvoii
on >>eljolf of tho pXaiatif f • and ««▼«« for tlio <i«fo««i«»t, ono
upon on oxoiftliMition of th«n» it «i»i?oar8 to uo, thAt tho Jury
woro voiy foirX/ inforao«l of tt« law that wft» property etppUsoblo
to tho oYiOoaoo In tlio oooo. in our t^inion o fsiir trial ono
iMid ana th«r« io no ouffi«i«nt reaaon foir ov^rturnli^ tiio
4»d,[Snoat« It Aill, t)sM»i^foro» be affirmo4«
(over)
r: i;i-
•lU
2 «9ia«ijur In tho d««i»iott ttf tida Qa«« &t wanouaccA
la im for«c»iag •plnioa, A« to d«f«Qia«mt*B «onti»ation ttiat
MMAmr th« •Tl4«neo, «T«n t>ii>«mli it b« «»B»icli«ir«<i that thit
plaintiff eoXa t«n trui(&s to t^to wortli iilfttttr Sttrrlo« Cea^Msgr*
&• was Anilt-led to a ocmaLscloa on o»Iy oa« of %hmi, laaMuialk
a* dftftsAant, «» fa thf. 9th«r nind tjrudics« did n9% rfterlY*
a a«t anount «x9«adiiit SS/I( af t^* Ii«t j^rloe, it ftpi[>««r«
frOBi ttm widen o« that tMc; «a« du« to tk# faat thut e«rtaia
dcdudtloas and fdldvaao^s wer« »ad« te ttm vrerth ilaier 0«r-
▼ie« }e^ai9 for |»art« or ^!.oa««fi&rl«)g zuit &aaltt<$9d in th«
sala af tli« truacK. thm plaintiff** right to a ^omuintiicm
em the nal^ of a ^iy«n truok* undor hie 8<»traet with tho
dafimdMit* OMRnot 1»« datortaisod la^ ocna^Rriag th« li»t prioo
af th« oomplato trueit« with th«» not amount reoifiYitd by th«
dof«n<'£tnt for th»t tradk* loeo the i^arts nai inrolvod in th«»
•alo at all. If the |»lftlntift aeld the tratic without tho
iBady oAd lioinia nnd tho not aia^ant vtimxr«t4 V tim anten^mat
ea that oalo* p%u* thi* «£»unt allowod for th« body «n«i ^joioto,
which w«r« not inrolwod in tho »al«, a^grogatod mi aaount la
oxeaoB of 89^ of tho Hot priof^ or that trudfe, inoludiag hody
and heiata* th« plaintiff would he fl>ntitl*d to a coits^iveloa
on thftt oala. Of oouro<»» in d«tor»lBlae th« amtuAt of tho
eeaaieslon to b« paid th« plaintiff oa ousli a *ala« tho 8^
would h# figtirod only on tho arsount r awlTod by tho dofoniaat
for th« truQic a* aetuall/ cold, oxoludlns; hody »nd liointa*
In othar wordo, although th« deduatione ««d# for pwrta not
oald oOiUd not be talcon Into ncaoid^ ration in dotoraininc
whothwr th« plaintiff waa ontitlod to o oonmitsoion uncer thn
toraia of hl» ooatraoi, each deductions rhcmld h« tAken into
Qonaidennlioa in figtarlag th« niacutat of hie^ ao8MBl«ftl»a
on thoea b«1«« on wiiieh hv. wnv «nlltl«<} to r oowaiiseion*
Tliftt this WAS ih« MMthod Aotunllji followed V th9 4ef«nd»
«iit, in oo»n«eticn vit't ooaMiBslontt |ml4 th<? »>l&4ntiff» on
^•ia«i^ - 4oao 1b>y hin* i« dcsienet rated V KxMHte I, £, 4,
6, 7, 9, 11, X3, and 14, In the oft«!ft of all smXas lnvolY«4
la tteco exhibit* th^ set aaeuat r«eeived hy the d«f#n(i(mt
vee ieee thi^ %6% ef the list prim of the traoAc InvolYed
in the e«le» whleh vat hy reason of the «lio«anM» lande the
cuetoaer foe freight or for bodi«^s, heiete or otlMir pArts
not ineiuded in th» eDle« or for ueed c»r« turned in by
the oaeten«r« and in all of titose ^.eet? th<? pleintiff w&«
pnitf hie eoawiaeien und^r >ii» oontrnot* the ooMaai «ieion l^eing
3% of the net ataicsunt realised on th<> @&le« It <iij}p(>j».re Alee
thai in eo»« eaeee a dis^oount of liilOC i»»e allows 1 for oaeh
Ipnid on dellYK^r^ of th'* truok. This wneunt, lUcewiee,
ehottld net b«r tajcen into 8onei<t«»r«tion in detenalnlns whether
or not the plnintiff is <^ntltl«di to s oosmieeion*
'HKi
320 •\S9tC38
Appall f^Bt
rn'mjo, mm
ClKSmT COliHI,
219I.A. S39
10l« VKSmimMQ JUSTXCH ;mLQK d«liT«'«<i tli« opinion
• f thift oourt.
Th« plaintiff. Mnnxt fieebt, 1»roujght suit for duaagMi
f«r malioic'ut pro««cRitlon and r»«»T«r«d « Tcrdiot ma4 jud^*
««nt in th« mu sf $a600,00« Ttaift tt9P««l is ther<»fr»m.
til* first oftuttt of th« dsAftrsilen «ll«g««l that
tiM Atf«adiint tmX^tHy m&A ntnlieiously dharged the plain*
tiff with hnTiac feloniously taken an eleotrio mttOTt rejL»
«i«4 at |£00,OC, a sat of 4euhl« harness ralusd at $00, C€,
a aav filar falusd At I76.00, a desk valued at #18*00, ftn4
a oiMir Valued at $6* 00; that the defendant eaused ths
Issuanea of a warrant and th« arrest of the plaintiff; and
that upon an ezaniaation hefere the oeurt tho plaintiff «as
adjttdired not suiltj and diseb&rgadl*^
The aaoend oount allei^ad that on Mar oh 1, 1919,
Xi» defendant falselj and ttalioiously chaargad t>ie ylaintiff
with the offense of lareenjr and had him arrested, aftar
whioh he aas disshargad; by means of whinh he? was greatljr
injured, to th« danaga ef #5 » 000, 00.
The defendant iM' ended net guilty. The evid«noe
shavs suhstantially the followiagt* In July, 1912, Julius
-2-
H«eht • th« fmthmr of tb« plAlntlff • and th« ^ittmn^mnt,
•ao}) of vhoii «fts la th» biaaeh kindLlag 1m»lii«««, twenmd •Titr
th«ijr r«sp«oUT« bualiuisseii and oftrtaln n«a«ts to th« U,&,
Wood and Ooko Cony»«a]r, na Illlnoie ^er^^ration. Julius
Hoeht, in aoeoaplinhlna; tho tmxmt^t of tola Imoinoso, g«T«
a Mil of oalo to ih* corporation. In that it is recited
that for $6,000*00 hm «««!««• to tho oorporatlon, "Tho Bunoh
neod flAanttfaoturlsg plant and bu»ln«s« looatod st 8609 Joneo
etr«et, oonoi sting of the real oatato, 1»ttildlngo, aaehinery.
tools and furnitttro looatvd upon eaid prcatises, tagethar
with four horses and four wagons and all hamesees and oquip*
went located at SS40 lii verses arftnuw**. The dofend&nt says
that th« plaintiff ceasad working for the oorporation in
lUuroh, 1914 s that h« di>9eharg«d hia, and that Julius H«eht«
the father > stoppad April or the first of ikmy, 1914. H«
further tastifiad that when the oorporation purchased the
business fron th« father that the iiorses and harnesses were
kept at 2940 iJiv«rsey avenue; thtat he adssed the harness
after the plaintiff, in ^lArch, 1914, quit; that he was teld
iQr one Bollin that he, Bellin, saw the hiirnese *en Heoht*e
horses"; that one Sgger said the sane thing; that that was
in 1915, al»out two weeks befor<i« le ewere out thf^wrrant; that
the hamee wltlah was broui<;ht into oourt was taken froai thit
plaintiff's horsee and belonged to the oorporation.
As to the saw filer, aoter, desk and chair, plain*
tiff's father, Julius Heoht, testified that in the winter ef
1913*1914, In the presenoe ef hie sen, the plaintiff, he teld
the defendant that the boys in the neighbertaaed ef hie fenasr
faetery (SdOl Jones street) whioh he haa turned erer to the
corporation, were stealing the machinery, suoh as knolis, hand*
-3*
l«i, mni fttXllag It mi Junk; thut the d«f«i4«at Mik«4 if it
eould be r«8M»T»4 to J^iu« B«aht*s liasmcnt •r iMUm for oafo
koopincs ^^^ ^» J^ttXiuo Itetot, thou iudco4 the plaintiff if
*vo* hftd roo« for it widi lao «»id *Xf «• hoT«*nt room wo vill
aoko jrooM for it*; that ho, jruiius Heoht, tho fathor. tlioat
hod the o«o filor. th«? aciotor, doak trnd ehoir rmaoyrmd to the
iMUiOmont; that he aftonmrds told tho dofeadimt lusid tho lot tor
•aid it TOt all right*
fho tostlMay of tho plaintiff •• to that ooaTOXw
oatioa and th* r«moTal of tho property mentioned is in entire
aooord witli hio f«th«r*o. Ao to the harnoas:* anu it in not
fflLainod there vao prohahle cmuoo to belieYe tho plaintiff had
oiolon anything but that • tho father toetiliod tlrnt, at the
ti»o ho ooat. into tho eo ripe ration* he had eano hamoos ohioh
did not holoag to it| that iw bought it in 1911 j that ho did
not ooll it to tho oerporatien. The plaintiff tcMBtifiod that
the hamooH in quootion woe bought by tho Hooht'e ycare a«^»
in 1909 or 1910, that it wae .. family affair; that it oao not
•old to tho oorpo ration. One Kubots, ft haraose namifaetaror
of thirty*fiTO years oxporionoo, tec^tifiod that ho had made
haadrodo of hamoaooe of tho type of tho one in quostioa;
that in Dooombor, 191&» ho oold a oot to Julias Mooht for
^0*00; that ho paid tlO«OC when ho got it, and would pay
ton or fifteen dollars orory year; that ho paid tho balaaoe
in 191S.
y»ur vitaooaoe, %^8»T9 oho worked for tho corpora*
tioB in 1913, 1914 and 1916, Siaoa.who worked there a« oaehior
and bookkoo»or in 1913 and 1914, ^4 a aophmr of the dofoad*
•nt, Bollia, wl» worked there ao a toaaetor, and oho Uoits,
all toatifiod that tho liamooe in quoetioa b*»loaged to tho
eorperation. Vfgtir tm^tt h* •«» Hax 8«At nad tlui plaintiff
11^ th th« harnasa on thmir Imrmmn and a«k»A thtn if %hmy v«r*
iwt ai'rald to .'ut it en. Simon sagrK the >iiirn«s8 Is ih« tmam
»• ti}« one h* unr on a t«at& of th« oorpormtlon; that h« sav
the har««s« tTOX^ 4«jr| thai hc> alesed it about th« tin* th«
plaintiff loft and <U.4 not a«e it again till in th« oourt
roon; that he knovo it ie the id«ntioal hajrnoat. Bel X in* tho
toanttor, oajfa he aav tho plaintiff drive with it on his o«n
toan tvo 07 throe wooko after ho li^t tho oorpomtion; that
ho reported it to the dofondant; that ho told thm dofondant
that th«y aisood tho haraooo; that he is positiro that the
hameos in quopilon is tho one tho plaintiff had in his poao*
ooeion. Motto, a laxqfor and attonuqr for tho dofondant, too*
tified that tho defendant oonoulted with hia and ho adTiood
hrifusitui in the witneoBoo; that he brought in KM^^t R«&ts
and Sahnidt and ho tnlked nlth th«is that he thon ndTioed
him to take out a aooond einrmnt; and that nndor the oix^
euotetanooa hif would ho Justified in taking <j>tti a vnrrant. A
oe^^aint, for a oomroh warrant for a sot of douhlo hamnnn
onnooalod at 2d4C Mveroo/ sTemio, «ith tho ondorooneat of
PrindOTillo, Judiso, that ho had examined it and imo aatia-
flod that a anareh warrant should iosuo, was offered wad ad^
Bdttod in oridenGo. Alao the aoaroh warrant itnolf , shoving
ita oxootttion as ts one touhle not of hai^eae, valued at
#ftO«@0« The plaintiff offered in ovi donee tho oon^lAint
aado hgr the defendant which eharged tho plaintiff with atoal*
ing a aet of double hamoos valued at #&0«00, and also, tho
warrant for tho arrest of the plaintiff. At the oleso of the
ovideneo aix inatruatiorui were giv'oa on behalf of the plain*
tiff; six on bohnlf of the defendant; and six others offered
>3r tho defendant were refused, tho Juz7 fo'juad the issues for
th« plaintiff 9jn*i «»»»SK«ii hXa 4mamg»B at #tSOO«00, JTu^lc*
B«nt wuu ent«r«d tto«r«oii, and thia ai,v)p«e]. then taken*
The dutetitjr and quality of wr^tt Ittftali/ n«Ma«aiy
t« astablish thf d9f«n99 of pr«1»at>I« oau»« is a suit far
attlloieus praaveution it e«n«r8ll/ far l«as thMH, »^nd diffax^
ant froA that ra^uirwd to prova guilt in a ariiiiitftl praseaui*
tian far tl»» «riaa aharg«4* A«4er«Q]^ t« Friand . 36 Ill« lU.
In tba instojit aaaa, th« avidaaoa, intraduead ^
th« defonelaat* an th« vubjaat af probable oaasa eaaus to ba
OTerwhelndag and to atttvalntli all roaaonablo iaf«rano«8 to Imi
nado from tba toatiaamf and aridanoa en baiimlf of th« plain*
tiff, Bcgor* SiinoYi » dellia and Baits, oartaitiljr mi»t be £iT«a
oeaia oradit, oapooiall/ a« tba plaintiff and his fathar oar*
ro bora tod olightlj by Kubats* ara all wba t«eUfi«d for tha
plaintiff} for« aran if tha plaintiff «md Me fatliar ^>ieT9
tailing tha trtttli, and t)i« fathar had bought tha hamaoo in
1910 or 1911,nyjq QOi\ |g t<»|. that tha dafondant, undor all the
oirouflutaneoo ahawn, wao not Juotifiod in bolioving that tlt«ra
vao pri>babla eaaoa far obtaining the ulaiatiff** arrest.
£f tha iury baliored tho plain tiff and his fathar,
that tho haraass in quaotioa was bought by thmn or oao of
th«M in 1909, 19X0 or 1911, ana noTor was sold ta ar b«loaga4
to the oorporation, still, in Tiaw of th* tostiaaay of Iggar,
Simon, Bollia, aoits and tha dafntdant, it is diffioult, la
deed, to resist th© oondLusion that probable cause was shosa
bar an obaioua prapoad'^ranoa of tha oYldonoa on that subjeot,
Aa ta aetlag upoa tha adrlee of oouasel; it is true,
if the iwcy belierad that the harness nmvr beloaged to tha
oorporation, and further, that tha defendant kaaw it did aat.
Vttt fall«4 t« dlflel»B« the whol« aat«ri«l truth to hit eoua-
s«l, thf?a that d«fcn«e fulled. Bat «• 4» net b«c« our do-
oisloa oa that ground, wo airo of thft opinion that tho OTidonoo
OTorwholBilncljr shows proheibl*^ oauftt; and that the Tordlot
of tho iuxj Vftc Manifestly ai^slnot the weight of the evldenoe*
The Jttdgmont, therefore, will ho roTereed with m
finding of fact.
MMmOBSm WITH A tiMmm CF FAOT.
JlUmiSQ CF 7ACT: Ve find as a faet that the defendant Leopold
Oeterroieher. did not eaueo the arrest of the plaintiff* Henry
lioeht witixout prohablo oause.
The dofenuant in this aase is
shown by the OTidenee to )%HTe siotod on the adrioe of oeunsel
after what appears to lunre been a dir> closure to hia of the en*
tiro situation and after his oounROl had eenf erred with soTeraJk
ef the ones who had informed the defendant of th<^ faets upon
whioh ho asked his eou»sel*s adfio*. It seeas to ae that the
df^elslon ef this oase nrui&t turn en the question ef prohahle
eauBo. In ay opinion, the plaintiff failed to show that the
defenaaat aeted without probable eause. It nay be said that
he Bade out a artsw facie eaee on that question by hia
ease in ehief » when he a«d his father testified that the
harness (which is the real artiole in oentroTorsy) had nmrtir
been the property of the eez^oratlon but had been pttrehas<?d
• •fitf
liy th9: ffttiotr and hnd always rtmtkined hin property. But that
pr ^ jjai^ faoJL e. oa»e was wboXly met luid OTeroome by th« tsetinoiiy
introduced Igr the def«nd:^t to the effect that the bill of
Bal«, from the Heohta to thra oorpo ration, iaoluand *all h«r»
noftses and a^viifaiant lo«at«4 at 234C BlTers«y aT«nua«* whloh
th« bara whloh had been tta«d bgr the Heohta in the conduct of
their buciin«t«H up to tlmt tlae; that this pertioular haraoot
MUB« to the corporation under thut bill of sale axx^ was used
\Kf the corporation oontinuoaaljr thf're&fter in tho cGnduet of
Ite baoinea« until about the tine the t^ohta discontinued t^ieir
oennection with the corporation, vhmi it dinappoared; that
later certain oi^loyaee of th« corporation mtm the hamoao
being used by the plaintiff on a team be wao usini; in con*
neat ion with tho bueinese he had reouwtd when he oerered his
relation* with the corporation end that they told the defend*
ant about it, oao of then oayinc he had oeofn the plaintiff and
his brother usin^ this harness on tli^ir t«an and had asked
them if they were not afraid to put that hamoss on the horses,
and that they said, *]to, we have to put it on.**
Beyond the bare df>nial of that eonrersation by th*
plaintiff, his case i» rebuttal failad to moot this issa« en-
tire ly. He did not show, nor attoapt to show, that his hamoss
was nst ^located at 2340 DiTersey aTonuo", at the time of the
bill of sals, «md therefore not included in it. In the ah*
•once of soTse erideneo is the contrary, there is strong infer-
eno* in the record that it was there, for that was the bam
which was then being used by the plaintiff and hie father
and brother in oonnsotioa with their business at which th^
kept thsir horses, Tehides and other eiailar oguipa^nt.
After this bill of sale was executed an<i the business of the
m
^
-8- ,
,//
HKtliis ««• c n«oll(iat«d with tiuit of th« defendant, and ih«
laeiita v^re employed in «oxm«etion with that Imsiavas, yr«*
•unaliljr thny vntir*!/ dieeontinuAd their bualneea and would
h»T« BO Ofioaaion for th«^ uaa of auoh a taaa hamaaa as thia,
Ther^ia no aTidunoe showing th«^ did uaa this hajrnaaa ar liad
anjr ua* for it tlMaa«lT«»B, after tha corpe ration waa foraad.
And further* tii«ri» ia no teatiiaony^ whatevctr ahowing or tand^
ing to shew that the defandaAt had m«y rea«sn to haliawo or
•uapaet that thia hamaaa waa ia the possaaaion of the plaia*
tiff and his brother aftar tht^y l#ft thn buaintas of tha 99r»*
poratioa, under any olaia of ownarship on the^ir part* aaida
fro» the ja«re faet (to whioh thrre ia aonc r^farenoa in tha
r^oeord) that the Haohta atill ewaad stook in th« aarporation»
which would hardly aacn to inwolTa an/ question of tha ownar^
ship of thie hamaaa,
Xt therafore saffioais to ma that the dafand&nt^a
(trnw taadad atraagly to ahaw that ha did hara prahahla oauaa
aad that it OTeraama plaintiff's prima facie oaaa to tha ee»*
trazy and further that plaintiff* c oaaa in raltnittal wholly
failed to maat that is sua, frost whieh 1 hafa haan oaan^lled
to aonaluda that the rardiat anu judgr^ant for tha plaintiff
ara against th<» stnnifaat waight of tha aTidenact,
!j? *0?
87 • &&33a
nenM or ths stati of luoMtfis^
mtwitumX in "Rrr^r^
\
ISRROR 70
i^ai^Uff in -i^r. | g 1 9 X *^* ^
MR. FR'SSIMilO Jtfi^tiaK tAlCLOH deliT*r«« th« opinion
of %JM oeuri*
Qa Itogr 19 » 191,9, oa« Xiira««ahi fil«<s <ut infenMiUon
in th« HMttieijMtl Oeurt ftllwgins* infr nlin . thftt Lor«an»
twn4nw0 , til* iplajLnU ff in orrer, on ttnir 18, 1919 « vno
•n idlo fltnd dioooliato pcroon* tanMiunlly soglootfttl of his
•c^lOjrauint ttnd eaillinc, aid noi lawfully j>roTi#t for liiaoolf,
iM|plo<ri«4 all lawful imoinaao, Imbitualljr misopont hie tiaio
without lairing a good aooount of Maaolf, is known to haTO M»
logal Boans of ou^port* and io haMtually fount! prowling in«
and loitorittg around otoroo in rielation of sootien 27&, clliaptor
M, •f tho aonriood 3tatuto« of tho stato, and againat tiio
|MNft90« OtO*
TIM plaintiff in orror» twraiaaftor «all«d tMr dofondk
ant, filod hio rooogninwion, a plan of not gniltjr, ^d a Jitzar
vaiTor, A trial waa had, at whioh tho oYidonew oonoiotod of
iho toaiiaoHQr of four witnooooa} throo poliomMm tootifiod
•n baiaaf of %h» paoiklo; and that doftmdant, on bohalf of M»>
•tut,
Bomaeolii, a polio««a«, ti»fftifi*d that ho had known
llM «nfa«4ant for a*r« than four yoara; tt»t h» bad ooon hia
'^5*^* '^■^f
*Yl^ti
oontiaually on th« Btr««t for the {>*«% •ight MmnKTam, mon^m,
ilH«« t«e or thr«« tiatt* ti vmIC} th»t h« im4 n^^wr knowit
hiM t« w*rk for sn^r IcitcUi of tiac; that h« «»• aooatsmtly
valklng I'm »tjr»«t» with oatt Bftlor«.«t«, «itt»But 4oiag any*
thing; that t^^ry iivm h« aaked hia «r}^ h« did not go t«
work ho «aw«yo o*l«i ho who wexiclasS that he tO^woye onv hia
i« A ooiooa plagrinc oajtAo or pool* oir on ih« otroot «1»out m^
iiae tMitwNion el«Ton k»M* »^a4 fivo or six F,isi«; that the tlo*
fondant aoTor told hia whoro he workod^^
Tlio vitaooo Doirito, a poIieoMui. to«tlfl«di that ho
know tho d«fos4^xat ahout ft to jroairo; that ho ha« no huoinooo;
th«t ho, tho witaooe* iv of that opinion ^oamuoo ho mot hi«
OB aa avorago af fif t«i»n or twenty timoo r eaonth; that h« told
him ho would Io«k hia tqi if he did not ffo to work; that ho aokod
hia why ho Aid not go to «ork »nd ai^ftort his family, hat got
no aaowor; that oaoo ho aaid ho did w«i4e for th« Saoyor Bio*
oiiit OoayNnny; * that Sorg«ant Carter arreetod him ahout a yoar
ago for a "otifik up*, mmi ho vao hold to tho grand Jtury, hut
iho WNnplaininif vita«aa oojld not be found ona oo « ^nowhili**
wao voted*
FauX Riooio, a jioli o o aaa , tontifiod that ha know
tho d« fondant ahout fiYO yoaro and had aooa hXm ahout throo
or four tiaoo a waolc aad on oaoh aooaaioa intonragatod hia;
that ho oaid ho worked in a saloon on Barrioon otrooi, hat
that that waa lookod 119 an 4 fouad not to h« truo; that a yoair
•ad a Imlf ag» ho waa arroatod, and had a guoit ^^^ ***• fih<t^
#te,00 and ooata; that during th* four yeas*o ho (tho witn««s}
hao known the dofondani, tho latti»r hao had ao ooooiyatioa;
that ho vaaro good olothos.
The a«f«nattAt t*»tlfl«d ito»t h» !• «t pre«<tnt •»•
9l«y«4 a» ast5i0t«Bt «»r44m ^ th^ Vor«»t Pr«s«rve QonmlBoioa*
«r» cf Ooek OouiiV eoid h»« b«en siaM i.i«y 24, 191.9$ tUmX hiu
vorlt» as fay laii h« knomi, if to ooiiUnu« duria« Xim 9mm9t»
thm d«f«mdnnt j»re4ua»4 a l«tter imxi»oirti«hK t€ W tiA^cd lay^
oa« "Jftlm F. MoOaffrajr* Mairiot yojr«»t«r*, Aat^di Jua« 2,
19If • viiioh ift aa fallovss *Tb« lyaarar, I«ar«ttso aon«nwlana»
im» iMwa «^i>la]r«4l by the Oooli O*. JTereKt Bremttrf ainoe May
84 • 19X9 • and vill b(? kapt at vork all sitanar, JPurln« thia
tiaM ha bat |>arfomad hi* datl«!» in a oapalile and ladaairioua
aMMmar.* Tka aafaadant t«»tifi«d that \ffor9 ha want to wo tie
for tha Faraat fr9»9rrm Mstriet h» v&rkPeA for aaToral yeara
Ml a poriar an<iS g«iiaral ttiilltjr omoi in th« ealooa of liooa
Albarti at 859 neat Ibkrrioon otraat, ^?hi <iaK».
At th« eilooa of tha «Yidenco» th^ tri«tl Jadga found
agaiaot the dafoadant* aatarad Jttd^aant aocordiagly. aaa oasi*
tanoed hlxa to the '^uaa of ^rraotloa for alaatjr dajra* Tho
dofoaaaat prosaottted a writ of error. It aao made a eupersedeas
oad a hoad of $A,oeo«0@ wae givaa*
The defeni^aat olaitto that the oTidsnoa dore not
a«9|Mr% the eoATietioa, The polioaaton* all three » otatedi
that the^ had known him over four yftaro and had oeen him
oftaa; JBomao<^ oayo* two or thre^^ tia«e a ««ok for the
laat eiieht aoatha; JQvrito eaara, fifteen or tvontjr Uaiea a
■oath, and Rieoio aajra, throe or four tinea a voiA; and aa
to his vorkinc and hia haliita, the testiMongr of all throe
ie that he hahltually sdLaopent hie tiaa, waa idle and ooa*
dttotad himself in Tiolatioa of the atatuto. The t)Tidenoo
to the omitrmrjr is merely the etat«acnt h^ the defendant
H^BbSt'^S
iiskAi finoe the infonaation vara fil*4, h« imtt b»«n wtTklag
fer ih* Kor«st Pr«»«rT« ';oRmi»«ian«r8f tma that b«for« )»
v«at to vork for them, h@ vovlcod eoYoria years at & p rtor
UEid «ottoral «tlllty man in tho saloon of Eoaa Albortl. 3io
•Tid^ioo ia net porauaaiTO. it do«« not oo«m stroag anaugk
to auUeo tho teotiaMajr of the tiiroe poIio«»«n deubtfuJl* Of
•ourao, th0 trial Jud^a had tham all, £>oli««aoa and dofoad*
aat. b«foro him, tm^ waa in a mioli bettor peeltion to paoo
upen th«lr orodlbllity than «o aro« Soa»l(}«ri»« i^At tho
r'^oerd ohowo, v« do not faol Justifiad in overturning the
judgment that wao «Jnt«r«4, fooole r» C»Kei<^f« . 17« III, Apj?.
••• i^^oglt ▼• atgr . Clon. So, 24592.
The dofenoit^it filaiioo further, that hi* wao &rr«ct«d
without warrant* The r^ierd shove that on ssay 19 « 1919, learo
was giToa to file an information; that, on the same data, it
vas filed} that the defendant entered into s^ reoogniannoo for
hiB appearaaoo, anci then, after certain wntinuanoeo, went t«
trial. In that etate of thi' r«eora no question can arise as
to the iaauanoc of a warrant.
Vindinc MO error in the record, the jud«»ent is
affiJWOii.
©•OOHSOK, J, ABi) THCMKCar, 1. 0C1I<»R»
X30 • wwrn
▼•
4jpp«ll««*
19I.A. 639
«nr»r tmmwf>* oilaiMMMl u» lMiveiMi«a ffuwtaJjHMl lor rtHi»o» of
6«f«i»dMtti*» rvjTuaBX t« irnKMlir* it qiaoxitlV of b^irrol* to
tM laRuwufaaturvd «ati (l«liv«r«id 1^ pJUintiff to do/^naant*
At tlM aIee«'of Um ^«iiitiff*a c!«i»« UM«r« %>»» «» iii^
«trttOt«4 ymmtot Xn ttkV^r of pl«4nilff for tJio tuaoi^t
of lift al%l«« $41Lfl0eiii«flt» to rovoreo wtttato 4«f«iiia«»t pvo*
•oeutoo thio «i|i|^o«X.
flao rooom 4i«<iioo«o ttet plaintiff witD ofn««o
in Qiiitnteo oi^x«t«ii « s^lojut for tim a«oiitif«o%«ur« of Wrrolo
ftt Eoolrakft X*«i tlMt 4of«iMl«iit «»• «ti««iso6 in th* MMom*
ftt«tt«r« of dOMfcttHTONl mXmiml ot i'oori** Ulijioi«« twod
iiooAotf bft^rolo f)ox it« pre^uet; tinKt «n Votofiaiury aci» ieot»
93ittiatlff wroto ^ofon^foit » Xott^r offoriag to aHu»«fo<}tur«
MUi ooll iHunrolo to 4of»nd«ot. 7Jfci«^ tonko of thi ti l<»tt«r
••yo *o«ipt«4 1^4 oonoUtttte tli« oontraat Imtvoim tiJO
9«rti«»« Xt i» fto follows i
*JFe«rU, III* V«¥ntM3r aoUi»19e(f«
0«Ntttl«MlB:*
«Mt« o«iE oil »t«T«« imA hott46t t» oeot^&in ei^iit r«»
fillar tNu?r«l 1«k»9«, oad to 1>« «r a m^«lty ^'^ ^<^ ^
iSt giaiMMt «;i«« at %h<(f x&tif 9t ItC «lgixt hoop Imlf*
tM»irol.« and* froa lilc<3 ste^, 9»#aailjr 3C tc ZZ ^Ml^tm*
Ullaeittt »t $&•»€ for tb« lnurrttlii an^ iUS^ fef> %li»
]BMar«*lMurro2»«
Fy«n JiiRo l9t, 31909 i %u ilM» fir»% of J'ojiiM&agrt
1908* w« a«:T«« to 4«»liv«&r %h^ wum mwlMx- of ^MumAo
fl»d h6if«»lMrfN»lif 9wr (i<^» «iado fnm iawotXy tite ««■>•
qiMklilQr 9f «t«d(« ftt #1*79 for Um lMurr«l* oau IU4S
for tiw i»ilf«lMynNAii» of ijUcv o«)S»494Vt f*o*W mvK jrour
iUBtuXofy lN«ri«^ Ullaoiftn
ALl i»*<MMk«oo <ioXiiroiHi4 ^Moriiig tho iMontlui of
ttwrtfl^ Afuril fuiu Efi^t at v^lX a» all otli^r ^»<lfia4[«o
. 4allvor#4 ti3^ to %im fir«t or JaxkVMUqr* t9CMt %w to ¥•
oa1»4«ot te tlio ii«»$»«otiOiO of r« J* X* murplagr ao tio
<iaaXity* t»im» yf pnywmt to h« mmh uimmi roo^ij^t
•f tiaa ya^featpMi*
Tb» «boir« ii>xt>t(,'::lti0a io oitlijoot tc> m»»
asroiOalftlo a:^(i«mt». to «itiior partjr t><? tM(i n^troo*
•itst«
Yours vojr/ %»tiX)r«
TlMl O0»tir»-0t 1^ Ito toirxMt i»(!^iv«4 JfiMMOlir X»
1900* tmtiwawita of iMwnroXo woro jmmio fyow tiioo to ti«o
•«ir««att«it U.999* SO lwaf«lNiinr«lo vmro lOayyoa* 7«« or
tlir«« oayX«4wlo ««r« aiiiiipod dsuriae Summxf and ]*o^nMii.xy«
19C19* bitt noso w«r« oiiXsipoii aft^r TBhrvtAfjft X9C9. Xkout
ymm 4, X9ai 4«foiia»iU«o j»XMit at Foovia oXoooO dOiMU Aftoio*
munlo, oa Aj^rXX Xb* X909» iiXaintiff l>v«tteltt t^s miXt to
roooTojr 4aiia«oo oXaXMiag tli^t timttrndtrnt bod rofuood to a*»
o«»t tte tiaXanoo of t2»o liaryaXo oaXXo4 for l«f ttoo oeatraot*
Vls8 92Ci«B* mm aXX of tho haXf*lMrx«Xo* S4006, Xt offorod
«vl«#aoo UiMliafi to lOiov oOiat Xto loeo wao on oaoh bamroX
«t« teXr»barroX, am ^m vovA&ot vao for ttw aiaouiit Xt oXaXM04«
u
Wnr»lft, m^ Xlm% tJ»e reaacn t,»M»t mil »i lb»— \iukrwlB w^rt
attt sMi^pAd %» <l<»f«ad«itt i^r^^x* to 3mtu»ry X, 1908, mi* th»t
A#fi»naiMnt fs-oia tiitas to tim* r*(^tL«fti«ti i^t »tUL.|»»tiit« b«
4«f«rreti for tli#^ roft«Q» itet its <i<ifmtttjr«4 mXim}»l \m»immm
lUMl a»t d«v«Xe9«d as 4«f«na«int Iia4 «K|»«9t«^, «tn<l that {a«ii»»
tif r fte«9««i4 to tlilB r^Njueet; tliat in th««« airamtttuB^**
tlM X«v Is tlunt t^ tM« within wM^ %im htLitwl» w&f to
Ve dftliTttr«4 «»« oMtiXfittf to a r««*o»at>i» ti«i> b«yi»it(t Jifca*
u&iy X, ittce* On tfeM •tlt«»r haai4» 4«f«»aant ttute«f» t)M» puai*
%i»n "t;b»t tMfi ^«N&» (i oontntot t(» 1»« SN»rl^nMi«l ARij^ Att^ ami
ilittt if« ligr Mttiicl «»iM«iit dMjfc «#v* iaii»«nict to pa»» iritla*
•«it 4*livttri«ft, na <A.»Xm tn&MlA %« MAd« tl^t th» teiiy ^utAAtitlMHi
iflJMfllTrlilriH ^^ ^^ <i«fftult wu nakivecli"} tlmt aft«»Mi»<l8 betJi
yj»rti«« liy timir «our«« of oosMtiAOt tvi»tti#4 %h^ oonlMMot «•
roQuiiriag ^la>i»iiff te ftAmioJat «ieft&»d£j»t itll tlM» ^mxr^lm
MMl tM^f*b»jrro2.ft 4«f«tt&M»t rflK}uiro4 ia tint* op»4uot of its
iMftoijiooi!* Alius Ofdjr fio or4«jfi4 l^r dief«it«KUk»ta fui4 furtlwr tlmt
th« tint of 4«l.iv«xgf wm not •at>t,An4«4 iMigrMi^ Jwaiuurar 1, 19oa«
TlMJf oontraot* V itn tonui* r«<|uix^ l^i«latiff to
•M» ImviroXo to 4«fomlftat bogiimiag tinreh i, on4 «« fiii4 tliot
%lM foliooinc oM]^»ont« w«r« tt»4o ligr pilftiiitiff nitkiongli tlw
r«Qor4 4o«o not olnrv tiiMt dofoiMMuit snvo nny tpooifio ordoros
liwroh 1» nMW» ttncA 8. 864» 1IIUP41I ▼• 84f « Mwrola 9. 20i* Mnrtfli
ii» •id* no lMtf»<lo w^tm olii9»o4 on tho 4ttjr« intorTOnias ttot
•lUiaionto «« not »ut» On mm^ IB 4ofon4i&»t «ir«4 piaintiff
to 4i»oentiBiio oh.^,a«ttt« untii fturthor notioo otftting, *«o
nyo 9r«t«y «oli otookod up with bnYroXs for tta* pr#ooat aii4
it wiXX ^ m s^mt tmXp to m if yeu will refrain ttem ssnlciiii
Mqr mownt tiiXpmotm until furtmr n»Uo»* uliic^i wUJL ]|^x«takldLy
Wi»ip% 9f thl» Iftttor «asa eet April, 8 «rot« 4«f«it4Mits
*«• 1P9UX4 }M» i»&<MUMMl to taMni idMn /OU WMli
/Oii tlMi «at l»«n«l« fr«ei new on ^iriXX \m i«^i«i4
«t tlw 9rl«« •f H*Y8 lttiit«a4 of $i*80, «• tiM
wrlt&t 9Jttmi—4 m* tXmtim,*^ ^^iMi ^^« ttttvyliQr tli»%
if ttw •ittt»%iaii •aM4 off «aar H* weul<i 46 this*
TJOMor in tuarn a«ir»(i4 to Imi *• l4taii«»t mi 9«»»IUi#
ttlwut r«quiriiiit %wurriA« fi»r proMpt sMpaumt* w««
)«ow«ir«r« Miii«i9ftt«d t^t tlu^ votiXd uM •eaM»
$m& w rmtXly fi£;«ur»4 ois vmt cr tlKr*^^ ours « waOt
iMing tt»«4 ligr you*
If it it iukti«faet»x;)r, «» ureuKi like to oiKly
ftbout tHift moxyr «v«Ky iPMk vuitil yot» (lo»ir« «ojr«
•tUpwrats* *
Cto t%»ril li <i«f«iis4imt r«pli«4 timt it wtrn j?A«ui««i At tikw
rodttotion in prlM w»4o <ui<i ooatittuott*
*«• iMd M>»o4 tlM^t Voforo tlkln ^u «oul4 ^t«
vosujBMMt im^ftt^Mr slu^iMnito of biUfT«l>» ^t alwmmm
»%ska9»M iuf« oucto tlsftt -m mum% ai0t %btkt ^a Jaolii off
for ft while xcn^wr m% loiuit.
V« «v« «n4««irariii8 to woric »ff tlui ourpiuii tiiftt
«• Iiti4 oo btmii amti iim t^« to )>o oXftv work owing
to tho iJiotiUoiy vunaAm *>^t ouob o ftwali 9ti»m<Atjf»
aMnrvor, w« imto «f thm oi»iaioo ilmt vit^tt » T^yy
•k»rt titto «• will ia«r«M»« tlui om^MMiitgr of tho
Iilattt* oofUMNiiMntl^ u«o ooro l»fMrr«l»* oaa, of ocuroo.
vo wiXI oa(s»«ot you to flun»i»Jt tb«ia«
A% tM« titto vft Uo not thiflfc it «Miiri»«ia.o to
(■Mnwa«« ftiiiiit^iii; untxX /ou laoor far«n uo ««;fti»««
Q» Ibgr 3d, tiio <tof«nda3tto ovotos
•«• ftro aov in & {tooitioa to tftko a fov oftrIo«4Ui
of oavty iMurroifi ana «ouXa uok th»t yea rooitno iHip*
piag 041 follows s
i oojr Moadigr
I * tOdlMMMtOQr
]i * 8Mkttt3f4iijr
of next «o«k ttn: hoTitif ^no this* do not obiy ugr
K«or«' tt»tU you iMwr from ue. vo would &!«• ««k tiuit
you inotruot your factory to bo »oro pfertiailojf »bo«t
tuo hotui taoopo a» on smB% of tiae terrois r«a«iTO<i it
Imo 1»««a ftiiMiot i«p«»»^^tt ^ <^^v« ^^*« witittat tfM»»
o«i«§ tlio tMiirr«i«*i
will f6rwi&r4 th« tJ^r»« «»]ro of iNurroXii aui In*
Brjt 16 pladntiff irroto.
**Xb r«if«r«Mi0ii to telf«)»urrol.s vtlaXs^ «« «gr»4Hl
to 4eliv«r you 1<.C iH»r Oa/i
tiioM liKXf«^iunr«I«« w« oliiuLl Itw iH»l«tt««^ to for»«]r4
ttaiwi* W «ixi autko u^ laik <Mi7 or ti« fnr y^u vls;ht
mmft A<f ^*6u irioh«
V0U14 «a»o Xlieo %e kfism wha.t |rou wtsMt in %ls0
Vfijr of Mfi \»rr«l»* %^« b&y* 9i*«|NahVo4 owroolvoo »e
•o to toko oeiro of yc^'ur 1moisoo»» «iM wdu'O liko
to hAYO or4#r8 «t th« rftto of about 406 por tin^* frcw
now MU*
to tMo dofoa4«tiit ip«pii»4 iiM/ SO,*
*«Ould ov tj^t wo «iro not ot thle tlMO r««4jf
to rooeiwo ^olf^litunrelo »o w« ^vo qui to o stodk
ott J»ad»4« v« «ro ttloo woll fUi«4 u]^ iiritli i»Krrolo
wi wo ojpo manliici; on a mmdl aaj^o&ty*
Vo tldnk it in ^ot at tlila tiae mt tc- li«ui»
oiiis^ping tto rotftOArijrt ^t will advioo ^ou Imtmf
vkm to rowmo* osd in t^tio wojr wo ooa icoop our
otoroteuoo tnm \mmmim oo»goot«4«
¥ou will h&»3t twm no in tlio noor Iteturo in
rojiprd to oM{»fiMmto»*
JRuwo • plaiatiff wroto*
•IN thanli ^QM for trtio roi^tt^iioe »iiii wo voaltf
1m {»io*ooa to IMTO jroa aiJ^rloo as whoa «o mijf makn
twttimr oiiipwmto**
On Jyao 19 yl»iatiff a^aiii wrote Soloon Koyor wl» ooesio* to
lN> an offi<3«r of dofotmant mm»mx>9f ao folio wo s
"Wo wo '.14 IM plOfUMMt to tevo 4 u Mqprooti
your v;lo»o »o to n^at tb« pro^ooto aro in tiM
voty of ttoini; borrolo at i?ooria«
Vo bairo j^ureiiaoo^ wsiA aoioMttl«to4 a largpo
^ttOAtitar «i^ Uiim otoQk, oottto«i$»latlB« aakimn
tbooo borrolo. ^r that roaooft* wo aro qui to
a litUo diaap^elatod aot to tiawo thm orOoroA
t-m
'•Ig*
Zf mvmin%9mt» tk« writ«r wimxa like to ]tutv«
to thill Wttjf^T r«|Ai«4 oa Jua^ «L that tm t»im m ht tntmuM4
%b» iMi«««i9»i7 d»%« IM W04 (£ inrit« wbitt the pro»]^dot« v«jr«,
«dMi on JuJLjr % HkQf^w iMSair^ wrot««
*lt —mm timt tlitt 4«aeitiir«(l «l.a0lioX lA>»iii*»«i
i»9 m% 4mf9l»»9€ mt rmii^i^ $m It «l)0ttl4* mA iM
O0B*«ttt«a«»« tlMf^ hftV« 1i»««n uoftbla t0 tt«tt Ml auiigr
iManmlt froM y«u »« ««« imp-^a fi»T« Xa ^rdttr t»
1m» v«y3r fail* with ^ou in iiuis ttftttfir* «« iat«tMl
to «»• alil tho bfiur««l» jr^ur oofttifwct ttftJli«4 for*
Wt najK ^ •onp«!X3.«Kl to aftk for %im &i<a« aeaivery
to ^ ojiSMMlflHl. Z »<»tiB "bgir thitt tk^t oujr oo»tr««t
«0ul4 »ot tmt^iro «b Janu&xy lot* ifOS* Imt t^oulti b«
ooatAOMMt into 190^*
JD» you iMlc« onjr vpivit l»aw«l«f if •§• it Mislit
1SN» 90««i1Ao tli«it v« ooulu t&Tnwm* to die^oi* Qf 9omm
•f t^«« for 3f<»u, to •ijttaliMr ia » awtMWurt our f«aiaf«
to taiKo a,i» m«tx^ off tlao &11 otook l»«ry<ftiii <&• •jt|>«ot«fd*'*
to tnio i*tt«r p3,Aitttiff ropXl^ Juljr ft*
nNi will ts7 Alia {to tli« rie^t tiling liijr j^ou '^*hmn
Vtui tint* «bt»*m Tat yc-u to or4«y 8«b«% no re Wrrttlfi*
V* aur« )|iTiiig al«ut alX tlio %iiuiiJiio«t wo o«ui iMndio
rigM now on eMOciag fA Oak biury«i«« (to tSmt it i»
iJMn»t«ri«i %is> u« 4«»t new iirlt«tJEWJr >au tiUco tJtto tettrroXo
or ££Ot« -I'^A »i tuition x i^ omiifiw* iMwovinr* in &
•hoiri Uaw*"
0» July 9 4ofo»atttit wiroto^
*Siiulljr oMN^ u» At y&ux- «urii««t octsvoaionoo
on« (i) «Murloa4 of ^Murroio**
Gfi July 6 ^iAlatiff ropiiod to titis Xott«r»
*1* wax mkxl ordOJT for ohi^nwnt Af nmthfsr
mr 9t Vftrr«l« to you to our Kookuk iiXattt to^ay.
•114 iero Will li^ot mm» »l4.i»iHi(k 4a«t •« ooon as wo
jioooiltXy oo>ii«
•Vo turn grotty woXX X««4«« «» «it»i ordoni
a»w o« tl»« pacaK^ag ^u»o trada aB4 it cugr bo a
tmt 4aya l»«for« wo mn £;ot it off**
i»ofon4aat y«s^Xi«4 to thX» o» JuXy S»
«?•
*«« ttr« in oo pmrtimiXiUp imunr^ fof th« »laip»
oMfii ftf tnurr«ls im4 il" it ie» nn m«mmm4at%lttm t9
ir»tt «• «r« wiXline %e wmit m r«ft»o«ftbl« Usm*
V« hti;^ir« b««» aloiv In »*ii4iiiig jreu oiu* «r4*x>e
t« uft« « oeuAoiul or iti« 9i»r\Xjr »* our »t#«k tf
6X4 lM&rr«X» wliiojri Jaaft hinm om* nMftiA •euro* of
vu«)pljr in l»«««»l.iii mmntMI •asiai**
On July iO i>3.fti«itiff wort**
*ir« «iXi r«nmi:^ /o;4 «ll tkd paolMMi** jTrniMiillly
tj»at /ou KMiy muit* «a4 «»ieii to %iimk /«u I'fr tMi«
*l1L«iiUMi mci%nw our ora-^r for ]^r««s9t •M|k»(»iit
on« (X) mrXoaA of h»rtmlm, oeoo oo Xiuit* ¥011
Wft,^ ttXoo ftttior Our ortior for ono U) ony-Xeod
Of %im *Mmm mmpmrtm^n •Mpm'mt to bo smOo on
I^X»Xa«Xfi r«i?XX«<l to tiiio lot tor two «M>jro iat«r«
•»• %wvo fojroiMPflo* ^<s^ir ©ru«8r fcr tne- too
Mum of Mptty lNurr«fXs to t'no I'&ctory* ono okr
to Ivo o]«^|MMi 99im»%3^ tmA on« our iluX^ 22ii4» anit
taptiot jTOtt «UJL fiiul ooMO «iiUroX|^ ofttiof^otory***
iNX;t ^>^^ <lofoai&M»t wroto*
*C4»4X/ uhkp uo ot 01190 too {») oorXooao of
)MunroXo«*
Ao «r« il.iiivo Mm»»x^ aotikist^ rotiarAJLsg; %h» tiio
OMm Mttoy*! t>i£ Xftli wo wo^xd kiti4Xy ook to mw*
tvoood 00 00 to xaottTO »ro&tft 4oliirox|r«*
To tl»to 9X«X«tifr roi>Xi«4 on ttio S3rd«
*sr« imv% to<b«y forwarO»4 iaotruotieno io U»o
fAOtoi^^ to oiiip jrou too Moro oarloodo of borroXo
00 proa^tXy oo |»osoil>Xo* • * » Oao oor wont for*
vor* to /ou to4ojr»*
Atftfiiot san4 (iof«o(i«unit wrote.
*noooo olii9 ot oaoo* ao «o oro in o Mff
iMTty* too <8) oovHoaAo of liorroXo. if jrou oonaot
0^9 i»ot^« at oAoo. ohi9 oao eoJT ouro**
24* 4«f«si4«st «r«t« oenflraiog t^ er4«r «f %im ftStna Aua aikid,
*V« «ir« MTis^ntljr in a»»4 vf U»«»« l»iiri^X»
¥«»u amy «»i«r ttur ftr«l«jr for 9rc»«pi 9ti3iip»mn% <•
iwo (a) iftaaiUi'>«mX oto'ft « i« )»« «kL9]»«ci Mea^jiyy
Oct AMfttot 99 ftUniJtiifl' wroiv (Mlc]M«l»«M|iiiNK r«o«if t ef tfil««^f«ii
•aa l»tt«r «f tlift S4th oi&i c:«aiiiHniiBe«
*W« wi«lt ^ «t«*t« UMit WW wovlii iftpprcoiftio
it if yt&u vouia pi»a« ^-our •r4«]r« four or riTo
i«jro la mdfoiioo for your rotiuir«^«i)t»* a* it
giYoo • iMittor oJaaJioo to got tint^ out*
Vo jaoTo «Atoro4 /our or<l»r for an tt<dditio«MRi
four Ottm for o£iJ(>i^a«»t tUlo W4N^*
XiiidijF tt4Titto no oluRt jTOtt mtttt aoxt oooic «9
tiMt vo .ouir >)4l »WLo to forward Uioa viwni jrou oost
t^HMOt**
te tho acKi tfnir 4«fMMkMat r«i^i«4*
*Vo acroo ^ith you titot imi» ohouJLA Imvo ttitron
you noro aotioo, lnut t&« foot tkiAt t^ ordoring
•f Wrrolt^ «ot» OtOi{i.ooto<i io t}%« r«r«o«n for our
urir*at ro«ivboot to nnip ot i^iioo*
Vo tiiMOk jTOu fo.: %im <30urt««3r in tm &mitor
OHO oiaoU OBa«»vor to ^^iv* .r^ «"»>'« U«* ^» ^^
futtaro,
H&fA mi^ oator our orUor for ithiptatnt for ft
oftrio«4s of iHurvoio to ocwo inrvmrd ot yo«ur oori*
loot ooav«iiioi»e««*
To taiB lottor i>l4i4atlff r«pXlo4 t^ noxt aojr«
*
*«« liriTO ontoroo t^o or«4«r for too mrm oajro
•f iMUPiPOlo, «ma vlli tvy to koop ttuNM oonlotf oloag
i« or4«r to t«ko ooro of jrour rttduirottonto.**
fto9toal>«r 4 4«foa4»iit goiro ««ot>)or ordor for too ouro to ^
olai9p«4 ftt 9l»itkUtf*» oojrlioot ooavoalonoo*
Soytottter ft liXftlntlff «roto«
•ifciM will l»m »hi:»sm^ |irc«#tl4r«*
Oftin out foe us tAttmwrttVf kXw&^ ti«9 tlmi
«as%)« aoMMMi jTonnMnl mi iieiMifigr* iHtti i» M4<i4«»
tioa te th»»« t«9 ti«u«« Iftfid 8 (Mum ft A»»
or «« aft«r emkXmg four etBXii for th« wmIc**
iRM mtkmamlm4si»A Una 4ftjr fdlleviag laiy ^attintiff wim •«i.d,
*V« .%Hiy« for««tr4»dl ^'«>.iyur or4«jr for t«re (Miarlo«kid»
l« r.»ois«ilt» for pTOiapt «tt«'»ti&i;i**'
4«r«4 fommi^ FX-fiWiptliir* c;» tiuD aftxt 4(gr plaintiff wrote ik9m
^'l* iwir» «tttr»r«4 %it» »>^fft for ti»« four msu
9t iNurrolo Aii4 also for t]«r«o ears ]»«r wo«k» for
Ctti SovvmlMur & aofowiNAi wrote^
*9I.«M« dia9«niJl»u« oMymnito of barrolo to
UK until furtiior odvisFoa.*
On xu« aoxt ciMjr ^lAitiiiff ropiloA*
*A« you «uc««ot« wo wlix mtlT^ rooicok lay
mOl toda/ not to ksmOco tuiy furtJaor otiij^sioais to
you* In the nooiittimO th«y «a^ iaavo a Our or two
oia tho wa^» for wtaoli you bavo not re9«>lirod ¥iXla»
^t wo will Hoad It off a» ooon a« poo»iUo« * * »
JUot ao fit ciA ao you «ant atorf barralo U> mMt for»
iMMr4« ploaao let uo knew aac wo wUX oorro yoe^ to
tlio boot or our acuity.*
*Vi»uX4 klndXy mak th»% you eoatiiiu» »kltHa*i»t»
m% thn xmt0 of out! imrleaA i»«r «e«k until furthipr
«dy&»«i&» owing to a atrlks &t ti'ii* pl«at» a« v«Xl
Ml ftt othvre. «« h&T« b^oeiMi •v«SNito<dc«4l« aiui in*
twiV* »uXfioi«ii| lNiiT«l» to i»st ttiitiX ftono Utt« to
On %h9 ii«xt dajT pl»iiitifir vrot* tiiat ths^ h«d inBtruotftd ih«
pXwat to oeAtiiMv nhl^^kn^ at tl»ir i«t« Of 0A« ai»)rloti4 p^r w««ik
uatu furtHttr or<l«r»»
aoveBii»«r 20 j»X«inUf f wr«t««
**• luivdt |[»««a ocuriryias <|ulto a ctodc of half*
liairr«l tt»t«rial at our plaat for ^ou« wad if /ou
Mr« ufltiMg ^M^jT of thoao imltmlB^X'rBXu wo wouia lUc«
to put in » 0R7 or tuo*"
Om 8oT4«1>«r is? dof«na«ust ii4t^i»»wX*4ao4 r«oolpt of this ottor
•aa o«i<l«
*BiiKrot to «ft4vi»« you tlukt wt etill )}av« &
•HffidLcst ^uantltjr of hAlf*lMirvola on l^ftod etttd^
tJ^r<'fOA-«« lufo uxkoblo to i;F«i]it jrour jroqiioot to
alloifr you to aako o^^wmt of « oor or tivo.
A« ooon fto pvMol^c «« vlll «Ghrl«o yovi furtiior
in this (Uro otioa.
You will kia<ay <iioocatii»tt« ohif»(i«ot« of
iNUrrolo Ml our wareloouoo io full imd orders «ro
«Miia«i in voss' olovly*"
Tia» lott«r wfto ropiiod to Iqr j^Xoiiitiff mrmOMut 29«
*W« oiaooroly truot you will f«Tor u» witk
«M oro«r for ocwui holf terrolo J»ot ao oooa oo
jrou po«»ii>iy otttt* as wo Jwtva boon ^mrariat <}uito
a lot of thi» tttOflk (oaout^h to m»k» fivo tlwuttaadi
httlf baxrolo) th^ro la Kookak ovor oinoe tho erdojr
wao iiiv«r>*
Aloo givo as iaotruotioao for Khi^mrat of
%»ajpr«i»« «ai yo^ i»o»«til)ly «aa« durlag t2i« noxt
noatli ao «f tor tltio awntfa wo oq^oot to 1i« loadod
49nm with Imoiao^K for tho ptt<tii:ing laouBO trfi^o. and
«• hMO ycu will kiadly fAVor ao ia taking ia overy
IkarrOL you ]p)0»oilily o«a auria^ iMooMtHnr, aa wo imvo
%jriod to h9 Jttot ao lonioat aad iiioo aa vo know Jm>w
.u«
*M ii«lK«o«i«4f« i#j^r«oi)ftUoii or y&nr limi«ii<y la
irt §9% m Xi%%X9 .rooM in %hc^ Imrr^l w«.Tei::tO'^.^a», w»
»tui2.3> 'bn v'lffftisBij !*i? r^rti*>jf jfi»r*«(ir<8, &» turnip ^dtrrrela
l»9« to »4YiMi jf«yi «ia0xiUi|r %^ ffkiy ua ■«>»• saore
loitor iai.4 *Bi4«
**]§»« « 3r»«»9i-ivi^atlon of i&iw «ji««JL wo tuisdi i»
in 0r4or» ao it ii» ^otUsM^ nojtyr liiie ««)i4 of tlio tino
i«^4»!i tl»e £i&Ati';A.et %h0'Xi-'. W «»;%plot»d«
7h# oesu^ot otAl^ for 40C lb1»i»*i»or (iUgr for
IiWlo. |»or 4eqr for t«» Moa%£w»« «i:ii«^ v«ul)i bo j^rftOtio*
WO iufcvo ohl|>£»«Nl ;r«u* ui» t>^ t^ oroooot ii«»o, XX»410
^l>it*« Inislodi^ th9 ^ior for '^MoSft «« ^ro n^iXiUji; yeu
invoioe to4«jr«
T.^i->^ X«it«isVoo » %(a£4ii«so of XlJIfS^O bM»« ojiei imlf
bU.0* jro« to ooMo to fill the d^«il« on i»M^ «« or«
villi ^ to «Kt«ld tii^io aiufl'i^-?nt to u«o u$t tbitoo
iMovolo at o r««.ttO»iibl« Huantity jior 4«jr* Zn fstott
INI f«idi di«^08oa t« ao ov^rjrthia^ tJemt i» in our
j^wor to mm9 it oe> '(MUQr o« poofti^o for ^cu« oiui
ottfl'S'ljr jroa «lt5i "burrolo as n'it&v mm i><>a8ibi«? wh«a /«>*
vnmt thorn* Wi on th«» half Vorvolo wo think «o iaad
Vottor ohaai^ tteie sontribot to bturrolB* iu* you ooom
to Vo uoini no ^^^^ barrolo ot <ai) toking oo MKOf
'b»,]nroX.» as ^o^u oh-a Xii haY« t»ko» mlf 1i>«rt«io« (ua4
«• viii |^r«9oo4 to ^stexk up our luO./ toarrol atook*
ikat »» Swipo <m ^nrj, into jjorle b^rir^lo* Of oouroot
%hio will moan ooneidorabl* of & ioo« lu us no oo
teoTo ^-wstot tliro«»ijuftrtor in<0Bk otov^o emu >«ooi pr«K»
yarod to toko ooro of ^our csoatmot for lkKlf«imrr«io*
V# aatioo y«ur wiototo for ikk- to ^i&'Oenliiouo
•kiapawAto* «M^ «« «ill !^e <^ for tito |>r«o«ot» la6»Um
timt you owt toko within' tiao &««t wook ot iooot two
•r iktroo «or»«*
v» ^oooife#r iCf i^iAiiitiff '«rt»to »«a e^tor »«kiflc ro^iuoot for
jjM^irvumt of hnsrimXm ^iiv<»r«4« aofitiiiuo4«
*if« ]M>p« yeu will iiturdim u«> foi- li»«ini; «><» aM»r»
Vut t^ Ke^olcuk pi»at is mkrrjtUlm KuMeet to /our
osJll «i waif Um«» alwA «na6tt|(h %e mat* al»out flf*
i9«si iiaouMand ^IIaf* «orth of o««9«rft(p;« tor ^uu,
iktii& »hile jr«u «ir» tisin^ t)»e oeo]ptejriK|« o« lightly it
»dte«» m kuetf ^9mA for tiiAt ^mA ef tSae lH4»iii«»ft«**
Qi il» iM«t day defttiidimt r«n»iti«4 m fiimtdt Imtt m>tMl^t mmi
•Aid in r^plf u %h» i*tt^rr pf lim<m0i*r 3« i3«emb«r 17 plftia*
tiff WfOtfl,
of ^narytil* a «<Hdt« ciartlil^ in nmtt w««dc«"
tid* l«ti«]r viis t9pli*d t« <in t^ i9ih in ^ii«& ««r«fi«i«ttt
»tttt«4«,
<*^« Ymttm %c T»^ a¥l.« te «»ji|^iy witix ^c^-jr
rt^utidi. .'■;^ui4 it^ m &t ofti99 init lB««iiM»iiK i«
fit e @t^ja4t»tiXI £Mfitl onXy for t)%i» r<9a«eii w« tat*
il«f«mri«ig sirajiMaatit of bcuriwXft*^
Qm imimaisc^ 1# iui<i M#ttia on jrAmutzy ^^ d«f«tt4tint wrote & X«tt«r
r(»<tU)oetinft jilkltttlff to oattool. «a or4«r giToa for b«rr«^lo* On
Hmuitjf 32 pluifttiff • >>y iotter, »tftt«»4 it woulO aonpljr vith
4«f«i4Mftt*fi ro^oot* On Haroh S« {^Xstistlff wret^*
*Wi» ■•*« iii iiic« to .-^^kc aiii.s?«-^Ri; of & fow ooro
•f iMurrois to you« if ocnvenient*'*
On tMo 8W9Kt (Uiy 4ofoiMU»ni r^^i^a yM»t ito woirolkeaoo «»• otil;
full of barrel* Aa« to l^oic of intfiiiiooii in tlio aoimturoa alootel
littc 8«u tJmt it inpto iiii»o»ei¥l« to oo«9>ljr with pl«iBtiff*t r*»
<tttoet« On A»rU 11 4>l«latiXf woto tteot it li&d »c^ Wrrolo
roft^ afi4 wouKi lUct rmry tm^ to ship tfei«« at lOtt»i ot X,U» r«to
«f Olio oor a voolu Two doyo lotor plolntiff ropliod thet it
tMHil4 givo 1^ turtimr pr^f)r» oa >'i^'j^^mt of laoti^ of bu9is>«oo«
€to A$>rU 14 plaintiff vxoto.
•13*
*Mi immt m. fmt of t'm»9 b«rjr«l» in our mt^t
and if ^^aa Qun ^esielt^I/ l«t uid rjMp «y<9» h ao3fl9Bfit
•9 w# «rwa 45«t tiMJSi «ut Of tfw front «f our w«r«lM»UL««,
*¥« will <m<i«»&Y07 tiA« fijcut iwrl «r n^t i»»«Je
to m»nA jTOu an erdvr fos* a esij^imi fif lMirr«l»«*
«row4e4 with th« Umci^Io %hm% th«/ wiMStdd %o »Mp «$«te KA
«»3''«sdais%« €36 %h« watt ctaijr tloi'«nai%i»t r9plx«4 tatJd Xh^y w«rt
still itswi^o io %$k!0 tiim '^mrw^lm '^fer %!»» rei^^on Uwt 1m<»iii««(i
Is T«ipy dull ««<& w« ar« g«i^tisig i» @Ar« old l»«arr«l» thfi^a «•
•aa »•••* Oa Miay %^ ^ic&istifr inn»t« dafendant tlutt it had
t«o OKTO Of 'ttviMrxNeXo wliioli it ^ Id lik« to «Mp, rh« aost
da|r d«fft»daBt adrisad tlaat t)%«y ««rtt uaa'wl^ to «mr« tit^i ^uwrrMlm
mm tiMtjr w«r» si^ttiag dowa tineix pl^mt* (^ Ji>ma 4 i^l&lntiff
vroto ttv:<t it «aa aajngriag "omrr *ina« va t^nik /our ooatraott
aea« #ld,&oo iprth e^ sfcatarial. for ^cur imrralo. i^^ faai ttoat
»• t.4>ttld \m ^Toa aofi* afraaidftr&.tioii for tmmit o^** if wo
lu£d aatiaipatad y&ur sot ueis^ at X9&*% a i>artia» of th.ia
ooopera0e» «• woula litfva looktd for ^i»i»ea« oiaawiMtra* and*
•MB wa hava «jrit%«a jr^u aairaroO. tli»i««* wa h^v« a ooupl« of
^iara of tia^-aa 't»«rr»i« mmm u»« l^tad iile«$ to Mva jrour idaaa
in tfea «a-t^<*r»" -^n tJsa a«xt 4«^ d'sfamt.^at- r«pAi«d "itoftt tha
4;f.j?ti,U«*y ir* iHaa.^ doi^ tm4 it i» ini!»©aatM«? for tt# t«
)M«aeiy« aoepaj%ie$a IVom aiqiliody**'
»a hava aat out i» «r««t detaii tfe» asrr«ai»t'Rd«oaa
Wtaaaa tii*' jpartiec. At ivt ti'«aa ««*« iJi» harv^la ahinjiwd in tl»a
guaatttico iBhiaii 9l«k4*tlff Oi;jstan4o iu;c «ontra«t ra^airad*
1% wiil ¥« aadiii thftt fraai iiareh 1 to Wa^«h 16 tliftra w«ra Iwt
iiti 1»ajnra3.a alil^yaA and no tohlf %>arrala* wt«r ttoa plaintiff
%»XT«X« ftt »a^ tiu». But il«4X0 )Mfcvir<»i« «»x-« ftUp|>«>4 prior %»
Januiftxy I* XSC8, t)*«9 ^«i« «rla«i: «,jrM> ^i|lr«(it mt 1«y it« t««««
to «x^lr«« After tittut 4a t« durin^^ the woatlw of Jmrnrnty wml
F9bnMx:3r, sat ««r« f^^i»«a, it i» trttit th&t ttn '^uraSa. 18
4«f«ndfdKi r««iu*&t#4 j»2,«isiUff to 4i««entimitt ftJalpn^mtft uatiX
furtltor n«tio« b«$»feue«, an 1% »t»te<l, thsi^ w@r« 8toalc(«(i cq^
with b«rrel9* Pi«&ii»ti.ff £m;r«<»a to cio ihi@ ftod la it» l«tt«r
•f /^ril a 3tm^>»m»%*4 49t»n<iimX ia turn t« Imi mi X«Ki«nt as
i><»eftiV)l« aWut r«iqiiirlag IsMrr^^la f<ijr mraMSit thipMARt. But
plfkitkXiSf <}oiit«iii3i» tlMit t^ ilnaff pr»vid«4 In tH« dontr«ot for
%h» affllT^ry of ^1 til® ^rrfflft l»y JimuaVgr X« 19fla, wkn extAMl*
«d« f9r il«f«ii«iajit in k%9 l»tt»r of Juljr X* X90Vb wMoh «tat«4
Uukt it would ink* aXX th« 1t»«xxeIo tJi«» aotttr«ot o&lX««l for
cULtlioucli it niKbt h^ vmi^X94 tv Mlk timt th<? tiaui for do*
li^wyy bo «.xl«iMlod bODTOfti Jimttoxy X* X9€S. But px&lmtift
Aia not ao<i»f»t tMi» prop»ooitio«i aAd oo ^MioimlMtr 2 It &t»t«<i
tj^t tiift tliAO for d^Xiv^TJlniE *^^ ^"^ l»ftrro|o uaa«r %k& ooia*
tr^ot mui aoATlem %h& imd* This would tond t« ia4i9ftto tHiit
«t tfa«t tlAO plaintiff 4X4 not ooti»i4«r t^ tiaio ]em4 1»ooil
ojKt«n4«<a« v« tloifdc up^n o oMrofuX Qe»»iiJM»rfttion of tlio
flOjrr«»9«ii<i«Bi«o botvooa %3Mpkr%i9» »mA ttM» snaAior of bstrroXo
«lollY»r«4 flftd roooivodl tibot tbo oe«titrtta%io« ^ut up6« tto«
eotttraet tor Uie j^nrtieo thomoolveo wfto thftt j^aJlntif £ <«ixo t#
fumioii oaok ^ajrr^Xc «» a«f««iafmt voultt a«o4i in its buoinooo*
not to oxoood* howoTor* 40^:; bsjrrtrXo a»d XCO u»Xf ttdrroXst por
d«9r« thi« is f«yth»r bom* out toy tJsff f««t t»3*».t Uwf-mirAat^o
Imoinoso w«» » »«w «at«njrlo« and 41?! not 4«t«1o|? «*« t»v»
9&rtiofi hfii4 ^p«t it ^uX44 Plaintiff <ar<«ii tltit oantraat ift
-e;<
mXiiPis > ♦. S4T IU« 622* X» timt QftS* Uie lMr««iu« ccjapiaiQr
teugiit IftOc^ IrmImAs of Mat frofft t»e i^alilag <K^yfiSi$ «tt tH^
?»»Ti««<^ th»t the imat •IwtO.d %• uiiifi?*^ a« «ra«rftd du^ijig
ii^e- nimi^m «^n(U,B^ Ma«8ib«r $!L, i906» tim m»3Lt wuM ml tkH
hikd ia«»*««L-^«a %n ptio*^^ mxivmritat wmf^ «»&« \mAmt &!%«> oaa*
ixsiot »% th^ i^!fi%,ViMiX <»^*i'9<^« !^t ^a^A iMiXa tlUat 6a«Mb faiot
t^ ^^&;:lt« Bat it «&« lml4 tiig^t t^ oi»sttr»f3t ti»n&iiuiv«»d
momO^mt $1, X90ft« Oeua««a for jpl«aiiUff ikr«it« tMt th»
X8X IIX« >^p* A81« i» in i^lttt« In i.hi9 tn»\hM% a«6« th»
l»Art.l#» % thttir ifs.otioufi «cnf3tjru94 tiitir 0aintru9% «» r«»
ssairinks thft ^uMfimln t» 1»<$ ttkipp«tl imi f^tuLt*^ m^ «ya«r«d
lijr d#f«i9H^»at ^t not to exo««4 4C<3 pmt 4«^» «t«t<l XCC lUKlf
^am3tt^l» i^9t iiSi^r a4 aot tim% muA^r ea ««ali fii^rtietoXi^ i»jf
««irfrr«4 Hr tlur 9(mtrii«t« t» th» iW^ertAmfH Mak tma*, iuM%
9i%4ia, tJfcMp oontrftot |Mr«nrid9«i %1m% tba qshdX mms^fOKj? fiiaouIA
•Mp niii« «iiv« of oo«kl pmr vooll rjr<»u i>««^ JSi* 19 CB ustU
A93riX i* X9<^« ?lM «o«X oQMpMr &i4& no% «;«liv«r i&Xf}« ooaw
por «rtid(« but th« tuMiANiar of CMr» «««<« li-i.'ii)^xjr, «««>« wi^o
nor* tlmm niiM* ooaie wo#M$> Xo»«, fts»a «b«»« ifotieei uplift «t all*
TIM ooort iboxa ttet tiM ooatntot o^ul4 li-^ ooagtru^^ i« tteo
XiaM of U» »«tion» of %ik* partitt* to sm>«ii th»t aiii« ttfim
l^4»r w««k en em «v«nMipi sjbioultil b« f^t«.XlTiRre4« sjp^t not &lii«
sMftys •Aah «•»](• Uei tii»t laa^ie tod !ihlpEa«»nt« df oeel «ietwaiy
flh»<l« «T«rai{«4 a4A« Mfn )^ir w««ik, Tim »uit iMie tiaro'i^ht ftr
(dMtiteitgeii f^r r»iXu3rfi of tM»iF mt^X <Mmtmy t^ 4*.liT«r »«a»r4U
toi tM) tia« euat»a«t» f^r^^ »n e^«2)i1»lt ivat offvriMl ^ plaiMi*
tiff Mkfi.m Tm,t »a4« in t>i« «f :i9«r ar fivf^Miig^^i}! »fi4 vltloli
tJB#iv«d t3^«! ntfUlHir of (myfi «Ml.py#d fta4. ^ra^^r^d «ttob wtttk«
«l««n:raiv4ii(i i?isf*ife«r th«» RimWjf ir«« *»v»r* ©r ''aJaert*,
tizRt. i«c YfJbsAtbiiX- iJwir^g ««ir« iaoie«r 3l»»«i tlMMn Alnt oar«
«laipp«(i, tilmwlti^ %lm\ d«»f«i»(lMit i»«4 lAt«iirpr9t«d tb« ooii*
traoi A« r*9ttiriii4 na «,T«nm« of alii* oar» ^or ««Nifc« irisw
oourt ttftid* *Tlsi(i «r£»l« «xM1rt.i nhoirt fl&^cijrlyt too» ttent
d«ftttt4«ai in orror wis »t «U tte tte«» tia^ir«ii« B0t«4«
£M»0t«ii «a %im niiisimtnttt vmder tids (xiiitK««t» an<s tlmt It
r««t«ai»«<t ti^t. ttn iiv«m«» of aiae d«ar» jf^r wMk wao i4ao
y«<lttJur«a«ni of %h^ mn%rnss% «it4 stot i»iil« mxm for ovexy
«0«i( re«;ardl^»« Of th« OTorohifNttonto of otjiter v«eks« as
MfomUmt 4r orror »ow ooiatoodo* in %!»» ino^^at oooo tho
MMMlMr of Imrrolo i^ioh pl&iatiff «o»t«a«» tlio oontxmoi
oikllod for ««y«, fnn tito -rox^ iMiiliiiiiaft* ««v«ir d«a.ivoyo4«
vo tlniidc UMi oaoo «&to4 io net in point.
10 iMMro oauutiLiMMl th« oth«r j^into mttti» ly «io»
foftOOAt «iad %Mxdt %im;i wre -#ltmut e»rit» but niau^ ini
Iwfvo told t^t tbo ooniroot oonatmod in th« iit^ht i>f tlwi
ftOtion of tlio ptuttiftt* 4o«o not roiider ««f«ii(tatat iio-Vio,
it will h* %iam»m&imw3f to <»t«>to ouir r««»o»8 for iioX<iiiia$
ill* otbftr poiats uat«iial»l«(«
T)M Jttf)0»oi)t of ito atipsrlor (,:ourt of uo&k :ountjr
io r*T0V»«4*
S^Q • sold?
'^'
scnmBti VAcx3n£| soii^As^.
lilSOttt
'2191.^'^^^
M, JUSXXOS 0*CCS»€kR 4«liv*rft4 ^Iw opinion 9t
l^lAlatlff* brought suit fk^»i»«i 4mttm.^.mx rftilmttA
•M9«iv to jr««Mnr«i> d»a«iKft« for lo«« %• « oari«i«Ml of toaMti)««
tr»assiort«cl fron lf«roe4» anlifoniia» id SaJt L«k« 2it>/« Utftli*
TlMir* WM a ir«r<ii«t ^mi Judumtmi for #345* C'O ia plAlntlffs*
favor to rt'ymti^m vMoh tl4<» «9^«a1 1« protaoutad*
Bo fur »• ataiarlal i}»i f«iOte ajra tl^soi a r«f7ig«rflp
«»r Ml- «&• pla«*«l at M>r««4 ^uijr S, 1914, for pisiiaUffa «a4
l«a4«4 liy th«A thftt 4ajr witik ta«at»«« to be uMppad to CgiiMi
Utah* ¥IM leadinc vaa oaai»l«ta4 about 6 f.M. of th^' oaaa 4ar
an¥ at 11.3C that night th« ««r «aa «t«rto4 for 4a«tiiiatien«
thfi fol lowing 4ay, July 9» «hiXo in transit tiM» mr was 4i»
irart«4 to Salt LaJco City. It r«aolMi4 Qfioa and «a« 4«llTero4
to %)m Gr^a^n enort i*ia« BailroaA Sow^aiqr »t 2s3S ^.iii* July
U. aati mo for«ardo4 July IS at &}3C A.M« to i^alt IrfOco Sity
vlioro it arrivo4 two iaouro lator* 7t^0 4«M«» and «a« {kl«oo4
on torn traok at 3t00 y,a* of th« oaaw* 4ay, July XSi IftoiBf
Owiitfay iiotM«g farthar vaa dono loitil tlw» following ttoiid«y
»v
«*mlas «)»n Ui« oMMl^MM mt» mlifi94 of ttiM? ttj^jrlvia. Xt
WMi etli^uXttt^di that Ui« tmr li»ft li«jro«iiii on Ui« fintt r«^ul«Y
Ikrftin »ft«r ioa^ng ami that, after <t<«liv<tr3f to th» oonnaotiiif
ro«4 at 0c4«B it VAS trftnK{}0]rt«a to £^«uLt lmk9 Oit/ on tlsy»
flrat t?«lii l*JMnnie f«r tiMt $»la(H!!, tiitw» r«o0r4 fui"yTi«r «how»
tiMi th« t«n«i%«#» w«r« in i^d ^m^itivs ithmn \&wi*4. »m thai
th«y v^r« in a «!«»««•# ecnditioii vlmn iim 9&t Vit» op«n«<) vn
J«3l)r U «t jSalt Lak* aity, Afi«r .plaintiff* prcnrad t^ 4«»
llTtrjr of tha towatoae ta tli» trfmapcrtatian QCtamrany liA «»o4
ooadltien an4 tlw ^aaaij^t af ttir-ia in i»«at L«k» Cit/ in a
tfaauimiM (»»Q<lition« inad tlta ajweunt of tlte ijla;;>a^a*« tbftj/ rftsta<ft»
Xt aaa«ui to tea aonaatiati that t£4.a tta«i« aut a i>jri«i^ faaia «»»••
J»Ialntlffa* alain aaaw* ta 1i»« baaaa 9n th» tlamrjt that t]n»
taantaaa Vi^ra <u»eMMKt4 Itty raaaan of tl^ failure af dafan^ani
to koay tlMi r«n%» of tha aejr ai»an »n^ th^ a^lajr i» th« arri^nki
*i Salt Laka Sit/*
Dafj^ndant offorad avid >!io«r tandlng to 9mm that tho
•Mr tMfta iJmaajwrtad witMn tto« ttaual an^ mtat<Muu7 ti»« «md
tlMt tiMt air Yonta of th«) m» w«r<i k^pt ofian in &coord»no« -vith
ttM» tanu af tha teill of ladincs* fls^ra is no 4i»»%k%9 tout tDat
%im mr f«umi»ba4 ««a tiMi kint^ of oar ordi'irad ^ plaint If fo*
fba imr vaa aoi te liNt iood Wt ana to Im» smm4 undar standard
vaatilatian whi«Eh in the inatani oaaa iftaant t^ii^t %hm vanta
witrm to toa kapi oimihs ao aa to porsnit t)a« tomfttoaa to ripan in
imAoit* ^fandant ajr«iiOa tteat itinoa tikia midieputad avidanea
itf that tha v«ita ««ra k«^t opan as ra«iiiir«d the plaintiffa*
oria» fa4|if <»Mia «aa thae ovarooM* laad. th«r«fera, thff iMurt
olMliad hoTO diraotod a varaiot for dafandant at tha dloaa ef
ali tha ffiTidanaa* naintiffa aif^ua th.^t th» vitnaaa Aari^ht,
for d( fondant* If^ittifiad th»t if tha toaatoea whan loa4ad wara
•5*
ia ttot oonditloa a» t««Ufi«d i» «md **if tttftnda-Ni v<iimtil*ii«ii
««• ebsttrrvd la ijrMUiit* the t«ia»t<» $i irout d have b<>ffn in gooA
«OMditxon upcMft nrriYftl «t dcstiiiftUott and, tltc^r<^for«, thin
would «K>ntr&v«rt the other ovidRno^ offeerod }^ ti^fandftiit to t)M»
•ffoot llMtt tlam v«»io varo kept »pvm mmS. n«e«oeMrlly prf'fient m
«%i«»tioe of foot for the Jury, tb? ooaio^aitloc of •.•oun«cl for
laaintiffo oo o Mittor «f I«« i» omtad* t)ut It i«> not iMrn*
•tti V the fa die In tiM* reoord. Io«h«r«^ do#8 it apj^oor tloot
the wilaeoe .^arlcht tostiflod timt if the Y^tiis were kept
oi^os the tojKoto<^» would hoYo orriTOd In igeod oottdltioa* »or wot
ho oolcodi majr sueh ^tto«tioA« Sarii^ht wao m» ^iitpeoter of fruit
«ai TO^otaMtfo for the lllimiie Ceatrol KiMilroa4 «aci hod ooa»
oidoraU* oxiiorieaoo in ittopooiiim Yorioao kindo of jioriofaohlo
v«isot«,1»Ie« ineladiag tonoteeo* Xt i« sfLoor. therefore, tlmt
there woo no oridoiMHi offerod thot wo^ild in ooy wmy dief>«to
thot ou^MMittod Igr def«Oikt»t, rimi %i»% the ventii w^ro ke^it
OfMUi in treutoit «• ordered* ismtk^ th«»r«f«'r«?, th« orijWfi fodfl
•MHi Of ploiQtUffe hoYing heeti ovoroosM the oourt oheuld kmvo
direotod Pi Yordisi for def®»a«tt»
it w»o ftiipttiotod th»t if o^^-^rtoin |)«r»oite w«re eoliod
tho^ we id io»til> thAt the tii»o oonoMftod l»iy ti'd.e ohlp&eni ob»
•oo4od the oidnoditle time of the footoot troino utuodiihtf thie
oimrwoter of goodo oY«r tho mam route liy oowea houre end fiYO
otiinttee, l»ut that the tieie oetttolly eonauMod hy the traiso
ho:^liO(l thi* parti <^4l or oar did not oatoood the ueuol un4
mtmtmmry runainn; tine of the footoot irolao ^uirtdlitifi; ehlpoento
•f the kina hotween the poi»t» iji quoetioA, There wao no e\il*
4«aoo to the contrary. Xt fl^llowo that if th«^ e«a> aeYod at
the ueual and OttotOMosy rate of oi^ood of the faoteot traiho
luosdiiag tOMOtoeo hotwoen the poiato in queetioa there wae
aa dolajr ia tke ohiyaent for wMoh ia«i(itlffe oaa oo^^aia.
•4.
Xy«n if tJ»(*r« «•>• ft <i*l»^ of ••T«tt tM>ur« or aM»r« th«i-« i» m
•Tid*iio» ttf lyoijr kiiia in th« reoord tltat such dtHiij^ c»ii««<ji ftogr
f«jrt of tlM dtuBAfi* alft|jw*4«
fi»f««i4aat orr«r«iia if} ftTldaace » |pr«iKt ti^^ol of i«»ii«
•« tJRi|iia*iit« of p«rialiiilBile fruit* sm4 v«c»ift^l.<e« with xftf<»r«nc»*
tft r«frig«r«tion« T«ntili»t4on« wto* Thi« «^aenc<^ ««« offorfid
«M^ftr«ntljr oa tlw tb«ojrjr tim^t j^iaintiff* s!boul4 h«tT« or4«rt<l
thm OAT ie«d ft« t«i» m»M %im h«»t m»Xhe<k to imftturo tfa* oaf*
trftooportfttiofi of tta* iettatoos* Koii« of ihip eri^nm haA
«mr iMftTing ^n th^ iflMitwnt «»••• Tteo iiinttiti 'hm^ ie whotlwr
ilM plaint if f« «<?r« givttii tiui kind of icnrio* tiM;^ «niti«9t»«l
for* iuk4 vb«%&»r it woulcl !»▼• !>••« %r«tt«r to nfiv« ioo4 th*
is IsooiAo til* quotttion.
Siitoo tho 9vi4«»a« elio%o without «ontx%4ictioB timt
ttM vonto in th« mut woro ko|>t Oj^en plaintiff ft^ -^rlmm fjaalf
•»«o «fto •fmtmm» 9»& %h» oeujrt otooulil havo Airttot«(i « vov*
Aiot for %im <l«f«ftiMit«
flM 4ii«#i«itt Of tiM c^uftt^ Oo^^t Of cook couaty &•
■;;U5 "u^C/it
367 • £6;2$2
\
A99^iy^,
ClliaUI't COURT,
219I.A. 639
m. JUigtXCB O'CONNOR 4«liT«r«d th» eplniOB •f
the fiourt*
Plaintiff brvught «n *«ti«B tf Miwwps&t AgRinvt
<l«feBd«jit elAlniaf $100,000 for loa» •f ooomifiGionci, lest*
•f tlB* and ftxptta»^B inourr«d bjr reaeon ef dcf^ndstnt* !>; l>reaQ)i
0f a o«atr«9t. Plaintiff fjil<?d a ecoend aaendod tt^^edaration
ooaeiBtine 9f two oeuats ie whioh a g@nerr-il and cpecdnl
d«Biurr«r vns •tt^tAln«4 and the siilt dleminc^d »t plaintiff's
«9«ts to r9T«rs« whien plaintiff prosftoiites this appeal.
Ih» only 4a««tioa, th*»ref©re, for decieion i« whether either
•f the oeunte states a good qauba ef action*
Attached to and aade a part of the deolaratioa Vgr
referenoe are a aunlier ef exhibit*. This is contrary te
the na«B ef ooamen law pleading* Ve will, hewever, eadeaver
to paee en the merits of th(> eeatreveriur,
flie allegtaions of the declaretioa nre imcfrtaia,
iadfffinite and ehseure, but ac we uaderetand them they are
in substanoe that on August 1, 1916, defrndnnt, as trustee,
ewned or controlled about &4000 aores of land in nolorade,
pert of which was eoet and part we«t of the l>latte Hiwer;
(1
thftt on timt «Uit« it raplo/ttd plaintiff t& obtain pur<siMi»*m
f«r th« land f»r wbieh it agreed to pay him a ooaundi^Bion of
*#5»00 por a«r« t%r all irrigabl« landB and IS.&O for non*
irrigablo iMida.* Mtt «a« to advortieo XTam Ismd at Ma o«a
•X3iona«* The eontraot irao for a pariod of tiro years* la
aooordaneo vitb th<^ tenw of the eontraot plaintiff prooe«!!d*
•d to oarry out hio part of the agroomant by advertioiag and
•ndeavoriag to got yarohasoro for th« lr»act from Auguat 1,
19X6 • to NOTomhor 15, 1917 » wh«n ha loarnod that dofondaai
would not earrjr out ita ooatraot. Attaehod to and raad« a
yart of the oontraot waa a m&p shoving the lano irM ah vaa
loeetted in ecvoral tovashipa a honing th« irrigation aye tarn*
eto. In the argnnont at th« bar eounaal for plaintiff
statod that tha only aOiqM>ttln^ mad« against def^ndsnt was
its failuro to conray irrigated lands; that no er>fl^laint
was made against it for ita failure to convey nen*irrigated
laadst thi$t tly reason defendant did not oonvey irri^;ated
lands was that the daa of the reaerToir of tyte irrigation
syatsm broke thereby roloasing all the water so that ttie
land was then not irrigated. He further argued Diat the
oontraot roi|uired defendant to conTey irrigated land ts
yttTdhassrs saoured by him. It w»e also urged that the only
fflOdifioation of the oontraot of August 1, 1916, vas that
plaintiff shouia fir«t sell the Ismd west ol the ^latto
HlTor bc'foro prooeeAing to sell that oast af the rirer.
We think counsel's argunent is untenable beoauee
there is nothing in the oontraot to indioate that the land
is irrigated or that it would rereain so. for it expresely
yrovidoa for ttas eoAToyanee of "irrigable lands* and not
that tha land should aotaally be irrigated at th« time of
mmn^rmmm, yurtlMVMrt, t^ otodifiMtien ef th^ 0ORtrsot«
<la.t«d 8#pt«KJto«r IS, 1916, expretely proTid«« that If ai^
9ur8h*««r of th« land it ima^I* to aalc« first F«ym«at oa a«*
eount tf a total failure of oropt due sololy "to th« failuro
or inaMlit/ ef The Waarmmttt Hosortvir and Irrigation Som^eaigr
to oupply tho };»vur(dia«or vith a Quantity of «mt«r r«;aoonably
8Uffioi9itt to pr«T«nt aueh failure", tiwn plaintiff ohall
ROt be roquirod to olatnin anothor purohA^er. TM« ol early
staowe that ther« woo ao prorleion in th« agroonoAt tlsat do-
fondant o>)ould maintain the land as irrigatod. Plaintiff
in faot, ohowo that tto v<uch obligation wae assunod \ty it«
Tho daraagao oiaiMed hy plaintiff eould not be re*
ooTorod «v«n if th^rc ««?re a ralld and binding oontraet. Ho
••okn to reooTor ooaniosiono, conp«n«ation for th(^ tiao ho
spent in endearorin^p to soil the Isndo, and the aonoy eaqpendod
by hisi. Of oouroe, if th^ oontraet were oarried out, the
»sot plaintiff oo ild reooTor tfould be his conmilssione, and ho
is apparently endeavoring: to fcfore© the terma of th* oontraet
ia this aetioH, In the«» nireuaietaaoes he couIq not recover
anythinc for the labor he had expended nor the money spent.
Xf he were ssalcing to rweoTor for th«eo latter t-wo ittas it vould
have to be oa the tlteory th jt the contraot was reeoindod and
at an end. In no view of the case does the declaration etixts
a eauso of action. Whether plaintiff Ints a good cause of
action for any part or »11 of Me claim as oojamiSKion, labor
or money expended, ve do not decide for th r<>a«on t,h«it the
only matter before ue is whether the declaration Biatee a legal
oauee of action. We hold that it doe* not and the domurrer,
therefore, was properly sustained and the suit disnissod*
The jttdi^ent of th'^ Circuit Court of (Jook .bounty is
afflmed. AWIHW©.
* h'A,
t« - 2SS4f
J ^
Defendant in Mrrptt
MStoms wmsmxt \
mmm to
19I.A. 64
\ /
Mg, JV&TIOl e'CCifiifOK A8liT«r«4 th« •pliticn Of
tiM Murt,
Ijr t>)i» writ vf 9rr9r tlMi 4«f«)B4wtt, 0«er«« Orftr*
holt, •m*ik» to ri^voroo o JudgsMiat of Um lEioiiaiyol CN»urt of
{ttilofifieo finding hia iruilty of oontritnitiRg to ih« d«lia»
<|u«no9r of » dtild oontrarjr to too. 4S, )»•»•• Ch. 33 H.s,,
oad ia^oing a oentenee of on« yo&r in tin Houeo of Corroo*
tion ttRd « f4n« of $200* we liave boforo no onlj tho ooa*
aOB law reoord, %hm oridenoe not being preoorrod hy bill
of oxosptioits. And tlto oelo iiuootion to be dotominod is
vhothoar th« iaforautieii olmrgod dofoadant with the oonaieftioa
of tho oriMi for vhifl^ ho wao oonviotod.
The awom i»forr«p.ti»n wlUch wae filod by l«aTO
of oourt i« «8 followo: '^lathoriAO i^. Staatiaoii, a ri^aidoat
of tho 01 tj of ahio««o. i« tho ^tato aforeoaid. in hie own
proper porooa, ooatoo now horo into oeurtt «nd in th« nana
and bgr tho authority of Tho J^eoplo of tho State of Xllinoio,
glToo tho !3o«irt to bo infor^tad tmd understand that George
(hrorholt hor^tofero, towlt, on the 15th day of Jtmm, A.l>«
1919, at the 01 ty of t::hi<»€0» efor« aid, did then and there
willfully «n4 unlawfully and icnowingly «nepurag0 a nlnar
- d«
♦ V
^d.ld vok^nT th« «#« of xa yetirs, lewlt, Lauis* Sl*d«]it, to
>•«««• a 4«liiiqa«iii 9hiia b> in^ucinis h«r to r«taisln away
froa tMr !«»«« in Tiolailon of seeUen 42 a»n, ohRpt«r 38
ii«Yts4i(i st«tute» ©f th« Et«t» ©f a;iliiu»lii<i «»atr»jp;y to tb«
fom of thM stftitttttin sueh s&ft© iSAde and proTi4ed nad
ngftittAt tii« P««o« and Mgnltjr of tha £>aopXa of th« iiitata
0f Illinola.*
1% i« elfBHURnttiry timt &<& liif&nsnatios li]c(» on in*
Aioiwant auat al!t«s« all th« fs.*i%z neonaaaxgr to eonatituta
tba oriaitt with wiildti t.h^ ^af^aueuit ia ciWijrgaU* ■t'aapla r,
iiJSXM* a®0 III. ace; g^ODlf? t. ^igard . 284 Ul. 6aa. If
it fail a ta din so it le inj^uffloiinit to nu»t«fciii & Judajaaot
araa aftar n pl«e of gwiity. iJlftyfemUfci v, i'gopla . 218 III,
481* A d«llse»ii«Bt eJaild ie <i«fiziad 1»y tbM lagialatura in
tha aaotion #,>>oy« oit94 «a fdlloir»: 'A daliaquent child
ia ainsr mal« vYm, while iiit>;«i»r th^? ago af aevantaan (17) yaara«
ar any famala ehlld, wlN)^ und«r thti «£« 9^' «iightaen (18) yaajra,
Tialataa ftny larr of tMs State ©j- i« ine©rrigiM« nnd knowingly
aaeaoiataa with t hi area » Tioioua or tanaral pitrfsontii or without
Jttat eauaa ^lid without thf> eono«>nt of ita ;piar«ntB. guardian
«Bd oai!*todian abaenta itaalf tr(»m ita hom0 ©r plne« of abada**
ata« It will bR noticed thst the Infomation in ttoe inctent
enaa eliargaa that tha dafandant enaour««ad I>oai»a Sladaic ta
baooma a daXinqu«nt ahlld "hif induolng har to rfmnin mvnj
fpea hmr iiamm in wiolatlon of uaetion 42 ii.K, , ^hnptar ^8,
Bawiaad Statutaa of th* vtt^ta of Illinoia,'' w« think no ona
would aay that if tJM dafenJant wa« ehargad mnrttljf with tha
Tiolation of thia aaotion of tha Statnta, that auoh oharga
vatLld ha auffieient. Tha iskforia^tion deaa not charsa that
dafandarit iadnaad har to ramain away froa her hama *without
Jnat oauaa and without tii« oonaant of ita s>«ranta, guardian
/J 4
or ouBiodiflm," Tot mi^ht th«it mpp^»n» %hfi iRdue«Ri«iit sdi^tet
iMtY* >••» with th» oenacnt ftf the eMltf's pAr«ntft. 7bc
Kl»Yan«ki ea»* is Ttry slifiilAr to the tmm* «t Var and Is
authority for the oonelusioa v« haYS r««oh«d. Th«r« Klavfto*
ski «tts indicted fsr ferging «« tjru« and g«nain« « ooi^Il*
a«nt«rar thsatrt pass with ietentlon te d<^frnu4. He was
arraigned, plsad guilty, fm^ s«itt»ae«d to the i>«nit»ntia7y»
A writ of srrer was sustl owt and the r»upre«« ;jourt held tJw
indit3tm<mt fatally defaatiTa. In that oase sec. 1()S of ttoa
CriKlttal Csdtt. for %hm riolation ef whi^xht d«f«xid8at was found
guilty proTidod that avc'Vy person who sh&uld falsely otalco,
alter, forge or oounterfeit «e^ theatre ti«dKet or imass for
the ftdiBiesion of aqy person te tm eatertainttent for vhidli
a oonsi deration was r««(uired ehoitl4 be iaqprisen«d in the
fositentiary, ete* the iadlotnent did not allege that aa
aitaissioa fee w«s charged for th^ entertainawrit for whieh
the forged ilidctt waa ieeaed. Tb' isourt, th r«>fore, held
the iadiotm«nt fatally defeetive and ineuffioient to sustaiii
thf" ooaTiotioa oTon after a plea of guilty. la the instant
case we think the lafeanaatlon is so fatally defeotiTO that
it will 90% sustain the ooiiTietioa although no isotien te
Quaoh w«a vade*
Sinee the infor^aatiea way he aatnded, { geeiale w.
3»li» . 188 111. App. 417) the iudgzaent Of the municipal CJourt
of Chioa^ l0 rerersed and th«> cause remanded.
txxstm, n/. AHi> Twm&GXf J. cojimm.
a«»4T
•\
A|iii^Il««a,
A^Wllililtll.
(INTERLOCUTORY
219I.A. 640
wu imtim o*ccatsoft d<!^iiT«r«4 th* ^pmica ^t
ae«u%ery or<l*r girttnting m writ of injunatit^n*
TlM r« 00 r«U shortly, discdosoa th*i en April 1.9th
IfSO. tiM mt^matioaal Grand I<odge» Broiherhoea of liall*
roftd yatrolMoU, «kn«l oth<»r parties filed t>3i«tr bill of «»»•
plRint ikgAiaot Charloo £• Cop«laad And ethers preying for
*a Ittjunetlnn. moooimtiiNK end otiwr relief. Aftervarde on
Hey X9tti» 1080* ^ le«Te of oeurt, an ewonAed bill of a<m»
plaint v»e filed end en lUigr 80tk en 8U»tien of «om|»lataMtto
eTter aotioe and « h«Ariac it vae ordered ttoat a writ of
injmetioa ioeue reetr&lnlog the defendant Ctaarlee K. Coy«»
land froM aoting »• preeidaai of tiie oe«plainaat aoeooiatien
and furtJaer enjeiaed Mm and other defend&nte from iaterfor-
iSC vith eortaia of the oeeq^lainaato in the dieohergo of
tlaeilr duties ao offiof^rs of Vm MiBplainant asoooiatiea*
The bill and th« eaanded bill were both verified
and tho Matter earn* on for hearing on thn faee of the aaendod
?^ :>;*«.
1»1X1 Hn&, th«r«f<dr«* the ^rtfttttrlal aJLle^atioae ftf it ar*
adiKltt«(i to hm tru*, U^ ^ i9MX»T y. 01 ty ef Chieat^ . fiXe Hi,
114, '£h» tmt/mritti All«^a.tloai» of iho •m»mim4 bill b«ljic
«daltt*<S ft« tru* It amlcflre no 4iff«r«n9« wlMtihor th^ bill
WAO T«rlfl©4 or not. ypwley y. fOTylrr . 204 Ul,82j K^ooh
Y. iiBiiJLiija. ^ 111. A4.P. 4W; ^stifl;^^,^ y. jummo. ^^ ^^^^
A{»». &992 ^i^i^m imffffiffffii -^.,« '^^ fM:mm* ^^ ^^i* *^i*
9rtt« thlo it follotm thst ih« objootioii »wt« b/ (i«f»n4»at«
to tli« Yorifloiktloii aro in hg 9«^ nAt€ri«tl on tihlo 69{»««1«
¥h« bill ftiid «i»ond«d li>ill iB^it^- vrjf h»ii'ky Avmwtk,
&OMO Of th« ttlloigAtloae Rr« e&nflietiniE «xid taamr of th«ia
ere diffioult to ttna«r«tan4 &l nil. But th« eubstikiioo of
th« oharff'^o mm<&i» voro thnt th« Iniormiiloml Qr&nA Lodgo,
jatroth«rDoo4 of lUitilr&«4 BRtrolmoxi it nn uniBoorpcrntod
Yolttiitikrjr »s«to<iifttlon maam up of » grand »!t<i ftubordlsubto
lodgoo teMo of ti»« objeoto of vhlab «r« oo otatod in tho
oontitittttloD. to ntmli th« olmr«ot«r mnd inoroaoo tho ability
of r«ilro«i4 iittlroXmmn ftaa to adYanoo tbo infe«r<»«tf of »uob
yi^trolMOA for tho Itneiofit of th^moolYOt and to bonofit the
WK^loyom of thumi to alleviato di«tr«o« artioiag oiok an4 die*
ablad »oiab«ro« to bury decf^aeed ^oiabere and to proYldo for
the vidowo RRd orpibaitM of tjoooaood sojabarBj that th» Oread
Lodgo ha« i»«uod ehartom t,o approxinately forty two tub*
ordinate lodgeo and that the moaiberahlp is about i^iMi; that
the ori^aiaatioB is eu^tiorted by duos oolleoted fro* mmabero*
•to. The bill farther ooto tt» that oertaitt offio^ro are pro-
Yidod by the donotitutien for the ooaduot of tbe b^eiaoce of
ihit aoBOoiation, «Ad it ie then avarrad that the defendant,
Cbarlea 1. Oopol.aad« io aa«oeBia« to aot ao preoident of the
aoffocdatioa without autliority; that he haa saeYor been elffoted
>-m
property h^lnitXnfi to th« Ai>»OQi»iion jsmd in a<rnv«trting thv
funds to >al« ^wn use; that h<» is jij^U'entiftu k>/rt«ln of th«
•OMplttlHAiitfi w)!© <»r» effle*;^r« ©f Uu* »«(«i elation from pejr»
fomtiBc th«lr duties. Th« \$UX i^rn^r. th&t Coptlaml b« on*
JoiB«d froia AsnmlRg te »et «.» pr<!^«id«n% »n4 tfeat th«re V«
an ftO««aft lawyers, to aak Jurors if thoy would bo will-
iac to aoeeyt tvolvo m«n to ty the oaeo who would bo in
tlM sane trmu) of mind that this Juror is in. The Juroro
»••« not aaawor thiit sort of a tuootion and you nsy take
r
^ ±
tm»9^
• 2*
y9iir •xa&pUGa," Ae «« iMtn pr«Ylously had oecanion to point
•«* (fiSaia ▼• ChtOftKO fc Alton ijy. Co . 111. App. Flrot i4otrlot.
So. 24173, cplnlon filoii JiAljr 16, 1919 • not yot ro^iortotf) that
is a porfootl^r^ paoper tubjiiot of inquiry in oelooting o Juxy
proTldod Xhts qttootion patting it, in oorreotly worried. In tho
wuroc of tho ffxauaination of the* jury in th«» ea«« at Var eoun*
»ol for d«»f«n4«nt «okO(t a juror, i*If you wibtp th^ <i<»fendnnt in
thla ouit would you b« willing to havo a oan In your pr«'e«Fnt
framo of nind alt aa a juror in this eaoe and paa» u>*a tho
iaouoaf* That olwlously is an iaporpor quoetion* Tho juror
might bo itrongly projudieod in favor of the d«f«f«nd8nt for
oomo r«aooB« aaci la that ovont hit anovor vouid of ooureo
Vo in th« affirauitiTO, and thoroforo oatiafaoto ry to couneol
for the defendant and yet ho i»«uld he the kinu of a juror who
ahould not oit is the oa^iO. On the other hand a quecitioa
worded aa the quoatioa waa in th(* c«se eitod, is entirely
proper, a»d oo.;aeel ahouLd be p omit tod to put it and tho
juror require^ to anove^r it. Th^re tho quaetion was aa fol*
Xewo: "If you were la my plaoe, reproaonting the railroad
•OBkpaqy, and you wanted to ^et twelve fair ninded sen to try
tho ioouee, would you take a man mho is in the frame of aiad
you are in now, on a Jury to try the ioouee in a eaae of this
kind?"
Aoother quootion put to one of tho jurors in tho
oaaa at bar was the following, "Do you think that rogardlooo
•f the faei that plaintiff ie a tey < f oixtoea ana defendant
a oorporatica. you woald require hi^^ to aake the oame proof
aa to liability for tho aeoideat aa you would if he were a
grown aanT" It would haw* been quite proper to ask the juror
if ha oo^^ild be as fair, unbiased and iagiartial in deciding
this oasa as Jho oo^d bo if the plaintiff were a grown aan«
r
•9-
•r »Mft«tldim to that •ff«>ot« 1»ut in our o^^inioa th« ^tt*ti»
tion i^ttt, »« KbOT* qu«t«d, iif«» ol>J«etloiuilil». It would ¥•
<}uit« lik«ly ihRt n Juror would got tlio Imprtn^ision ot tho
ontoot of th« trial, fro» »u(^ & quootion, that tbn pl«i»>
tiff o»o roquirod to aaico tho ooao olutwin^^ as to th« «x«r*
oloo of «Rro en iiim port «• ho wouX4 if ho V'X^ am adult*
altliougk toolmi cully ond etrietly* tto« quoetlon night not
lioar tlwt intorprotation.
TloMi oourt ftloo rofuood to rIXow th« juroro to onovor
tho folloving Quosticn: *£» you uacl^rotand what is aoiuit by
9ro9«»4«ranoo or g;r<^ftt«r troight of th« 0Yl<l«neo?** That is
a fivpcr <|ttootio« aad tho oeurt'e rulixts upon it was not ooiw
root. Wliilo « Juror nay not 'bo roiiuired to have a knowlode*
of teohniool logal tovma, 1m should be ablo to undorotand
ilw Knelioh languiMso and wa^ ploJla tomo aa arc »ot with in
tho trial of ovory oaoo,
On Soptombor 7, 1917 • tSao plaistiff wao cresoiim
Mth otr««t in tho ait/ of Chi flag* • on %}» voot side of f^otmrnr*
oial avotiuo. It wao rainiBn bard. Urn wac oarrytiic his oittor*
a ohild of eix or ooYon yoarOf on hio loft am. 7h^ ir«ro
botb aovorod by a raia ooat aad ho wao aloo oarrying an ua*
liroUa. Aa tlM^ woro proaaodinc aarooa SSth etroot and appar*
tatly aftor thojr had paaaod th« sniddlo lino of that etroet,
tho/ wer*^ otrtiflile and iuadiod do«B by « toaa drawinc a vagoa.
thmilf fall bc-twoon the horooo and. aftor tho «««;ob had paaood,
a vWMMi who v«^o OB tho oeraor at tho tlrno, pi(Aod up tho
litilo girl and oarriod hor bono, and tho plaintiff got up
aad want to thoir hamm, whioh wao noar by, hlmoolf. wo
gatlMir from tho rooord thot tho girl was not iojurod but tho
plaintiff had boon otmdk on ob<? of hio logs and roool-r«d
•4.
the inJiiiT her* mu«i upon. Th« wiNSOn wms 4«tt«rlb*d «« a
/•Xlo«. «■«•«• Willi hiiKh eid«s Wt iM top ftnd it »*ti oOY^red
•▼«r with a ooinTaa tnrpaalin. Thnm wui t«»iia»n]r for th«
plaintiff to th« ttffoet that tte d«fftBd«uit*« name app«nr»4
on the «a«;on, one ifitne»» t«atifyiB|c that ho aaw th» vorda
"OonauMara Xe« Oaapaiqr* on it. Tho follovins day he ^ac
eallod to th« at»nd and h« th«n t<^etlfi«<i that tho nataa
en th« wagon was ^'Conaunors Oeatptyngr*. Th« KFagea had aena
froa tha oouth aloas Coraaaroiiil avenuo and turnad waot into
08th atroet «h«n it otrude the plaintiff, tim accident
• Qoofvu at 11:30 A.M* aa th« plaintiff vaa oarxyinc hio
aiotar hono frou a. nai^hboria^ paraolilal oehoaX.
In addition to a ploa of the ganoral isouo, tha
daf^nOant filad a ploa of aon»aimarohip and tha ^fialn ^ueBtioa
ioYolTod in th«^ eaao vaa vhathor the wagon in qaostion «aa
in faet on« of th» defendant's or h«los8ad t'«^ othara, at
dofandant «lai»od,
Tha plaint iff *ii do<d.aratio]i* ao originalljK fiX^d,
oenaiatad of thrao oounta. This firot ohat^ad gonoral irMtXl**
ganoa* 7h«> aaoond aXlagad tha ▼iolatien of a oity ordinanoa«
pro hiM tine driving streund a oomar at a apaod graator than
faur ailao an hoar. ¥ha third all aged t^t tha naij^hherhood
in fiucatioa was thii^Xy popalatad* and ohargad that dafaad*
ant had fail ad to giro way notiea or vamlng of tha appreaah
of tha wagon. Diuring the trial tho court p«r»itted plain*
tiff to flla an additional oount rooiting tha Tiolation of
a aitgr ordiiumoo raquiring tht drirer of a vahiela to giTo
a aiipaal hy raiaing his hand in rounding a corner. Yhio ao»
tion of tha oourt io aloo ooaplainad of. Ao the appliention
to file thia additional oount vaa not aupported hy any s>ioai»
»^i
• 5*
tug ef dllig«no« and no «x9ua« wmti glT«n for thu d«ltkjr in
filing it, th9 appXiofttloa might veil ttare >(»<m <l#ni«4l, Intt
•R the other h«nd w do not oonnidc'r tfm exerois* of tb<»
o»uLrt*« di8«r«tioii, in penoittins the plaintiff to fxl« it,
fts error. u«rt«inljr th« d#feiid»nt'«i def«(Rft« oould not )»▼• !»••»
pr«judie«d Igr the filing of thle ^dditicnfti oount.
iiurina th« eros«<»«auu»in&tion of the plaintiff, ooua««I
for d«fend«nt aoked hi«« *3fottr r#ooll«otion of what th« ««eon
«»■, iB larg*!/ baood es your «x«miBAtiOB iMde over in th«
(3*m»vamnt9* yardt* That quoetion zaii.ht h«tter haTo ho«n put in
tho fern ttf a quoetion and mh a statooient* bat it was not
argttM«nt«tivo as otatod hy th« oeuri in auataiaing plaintiff**
•hjeotioa to it. it vao a proper «tibjoot ef oroao^oxaadaa*
tioa. Tho plaiatiff «a« oovored up with a rain oeat and aa
umbrella at th« tin* of the aooidont. The wajgon itaolf was
eoTorod Iqt a aanwaa eoYwring* thrown ov^r it. and it was
aoYiag rabidly. Sororal days lator the plaintiff and hi*
methar had visited th» defendant* e yard and exaainod it» wagoao.
Tho plaintiff had net previously aasvored th« question, as his
oeunsel oontends. When the question wae first asked, oounsei
fer defendant added aaether qut^etion to it, naciely, 'You leelced
it over oarefully dida*t youT* The plaintiff said he had, and
th<»a the question referrf^d to was repeated ana the plaintiff
answered, *Xt i* the sawe wagon*. Coun»««l for defendant then
said, "Anewer the queetioa." aad again repeated it ia substance,
whrreupoa the eourt rulad it out aa argwaentative although no
objection had been interposed by the plaintiff.
One of the plaintiff* b witn«esr8 who had given test!*
aaay about the ntmw on the wa^^on that struadt the plaintiff, to
whleh we have referred, testified that we tnji l^lish. m gave
•'^'.>?».
his nuMl «• HXb^p, Cn <iros8»«txftisi.nfttleii hf> mnn acKk^ct if
Bivhof ma « l?«li«h muii*. So obj«stioa ^7a» interpot d to
th« ^uattien Wt tlie oourt a«i<i it BUikd« no dlf reronc* vh«th9r
Mm namB «•• "Joiwe, SbMithf Bishop or Bishopttiqr or Anything
•Xti«,* »ii4 ruLMI it out« Th« (ittoetion Wbo proper, it «•«
otPIMir^atljr a pjrelifaimiry question snd taight h«tvo led to «
lin* of inquiry iou«fein« th« or«4ibiiit^ of tho vitnoso.
From offidftTito |>r#oontod to the oourt in oupport
of tho motion for a now trial, ii «i'pp6«T0, tttat dofoadont**
iirr(i^eti|(*tor h»d xukde oomo f if toon tripo into th» Tioinity
•f this oooident in ooaroh of ivitn<»o»«>o «aa its dofenoo had
boon pr^^jrarod with Ott<fl» witnoeooe «• had l»eon found. At tho
elOKO of th# first day of the trial, the invf^etlgator Oarioon,
took two boys, who w^re witnoeoeo, homo, and in t&llclng with
tho ttoth^r of ono of th«», ho X«mrn«A of others who mieht
know about tho aocfildt!»nt oad in following up this infomation
ho found ono wyrohok. Aft«r talking with him iw servwd him
with fi euto|M>ona, and th« following oioming h« was a witneoo
at tho triaX* Ho tostifiod ho had lioon a toawottr on an
oxpr«oo wogon an<i on bottlo httr wagono,* *Th«n 1 workod on an
loo wagon for Chrio Chirbobba** Ho was aok«d whnthor ho was
driving a wagon in Chioogo o« or about ^optombor 7, 1917 »
and ho anowert^, *1 oouldn*t Juot oay if it woe that doto
•r not* but I haTo boon driving for Chris Chirbobba at that
tiao«* Ho tostifiod further that ho was driving a yollow
oiKproos wagon, *with otakos tvp that otand about fivo foot
Irtgta*; that ho had two ho rows, a bay and a oorrol; that ho
did*nt ro»MMibor tho data; that *I ha von* t no aoeidmt at all
only Juot that llttlo kid foil upon mo, in front of aio when
1 pttllod fro» ««thto we8tt)f88th otroot to Kseanaba.** Without
cyto
.iMt
•7-
mny^ •^Jeotion >i«lac lutcr^oatd th« •oart •rder«d thia tesiJU
»oay »trlek«>n out be<»ttefi h* eeuld n»t *••« ani^ ooan«dtlon«*
0«uBa«l for dof «>£idJ4At *«eiur««i th€ oourt tlnAt ho i»>euld oonr.oot
ilM tootlNOiiy itPii^nd he proaoodod to aak tinethor <|ttostioa
oad tho 00 art intorruptod hin and rofuood to lot hla yrooood*
Tho witnooft thon tootlflod that ho imov th« plttintifti that
ho orno haulinc oomo borrolo of »jm.ftkojrj that h« droTO o«st on
9tnd otroot, oftBO to Ooionioroiitl aYonuo, "and thc's thnt vso
voot around th« oornor to BBth and north, ano north of eath,
I woo eolniS vost, «n<i thore wao a bundi of l.ittl« kids eoalng
out of eiuireh b«two<»n oloiron and twolTo o*olo^, that 4mj
and X wifnam my i^aai aoming in off voot to 38th and Iteaanaha
mrmnnm, and tho klA oaao with an mhroila * * • it was irain*
ins * » » and X hoilorod at the kid. raid that tino I mmas
tho toaa OTor off of 88th north, and th« kid foXl Juet bo»
oido of sy taaai, ami i droTo avay about a bio ok and o^ao
Haok to aoo if that kid wao hart » » • and h« naan*t there, «
Bo fnrthor toatified that ho had a taryanlia over hia vacon;
that he dida*t know vho %im bey ««•• m wao than aekod if
it waa tho plaintiff and ho anawered. "Whsf, I oouldnU aajr
iMv,* and lator ho anav«red, "Ho aia*t %h0 boy at that tisio.*
ThiB th« oeurt atruiA out although no objootioa had boon in*
torpoaod and tho oourt th«r. naked hia if tho plaintiff vaa thi
bajr that foil in front of his toam and ho anawored. ^Whjr. J
oouldn*t aoo tho bay* a faoo boimuso ho haa an unbrolla OTor
him*; ho aaid ho eould not aoc who t her ho naa oarzying any*
body in Hia araia booauaa of tho uabrolla; that it vaa botwooa
alavaa and tvolTO o*olodc on a rainy day; that h« eould not
CiTO tho data or tho month; that it woa in tho vintor. Thore*
upon tho oourt aaid (no ob^oetion harin^ bf^on intorpoaod by
plaintiff) •Striko it all out." Oounaol for defendant aaid
h« would eonn«et up tH« tftistliBongr of tht» witactti with
another vitnooo. Th^ court OAid, *■• you omniDdt.'*
Counael for d«f«nd»at off^r«fl to ekow tlmt iimtdiattly
lUrter th« «e<^di««nt th« vitnoo* had taotlfiftd aliout, ho had
told anoUior atwut it (the other wltnooo r<rforred to) and
ho told th«> oouxt this witaooa would ai«o oorrehorato
Ijrrohoh aa to hlo noYoaoato on tho* daj^ in quooiion. Xa
iootifyias ahout th« bojr laTolvod in th« &ooidont ho «ao
dooerihing, <9yroh«k roferrod to kiim aa <*th« littlo follow*,
whrrotti^on tho oourt aoked hlA how tall ho «ao and ho in*
dioatod ahO'Jt four and a half or flTO foot. The oourt
thoa aakod hew old th« hoy waa and tho witaooo aaawarod*
*Six or ooroa y«ar«, X gutcnn,* «hor«ii|»(»a tho oourt aaid*
without ohjootion to tho «Tideno« holn^ asado on tho pari
of tho plaintiff, *Btrik(» it all out,* all Ib otriekon
out,* you will pay no attontlon to it«" la tor the oxamiaa*
tion of the wltneoa roeurrod to tho tino of the aooidont tho
«itn«a» h&d d«Borilrod aad tho oourt aakod, *You oaid it vaa
vlntftrf* and tho witao«« aao\rerod, *Woll, it wao a kind of
elipitory dajr,* it waa rainin«.* tho oourt then aoked hla
if it wat snowing and ho oaid ae it wgls raining and froson.
Aftor OfMM furthor ctueetioning the oourt t&ld, *l don*t aoo
tho aooooalty of opondiag tiao upon thio, hooaiwo it io all
etriokon out o » » there io no c^nnoction ohoim botwoon thlo
auaa*o otatomoat and this ao old on t,* |}of»ndont eontondod that
thore waa eoao oonn«etion hut the oourt oaid, **Xt i« all
otri4ic«o out.* Oounsol for dofoadaat th«n said, **X went ta
■Mko thio offer to proTO that the naa •,* wh^r^upoa tho oourt
latorraptod and oaid, "80, I won't lot /ou m»k^f any offer
to prove anythiag. ^ou have aehed your <ia»stioae aad X havo
hoard thenu If you ha to an^ further ^uootions, aek thorn.*
0»un»«l Again «d<ir«cA«4 th« eourt %nd said, **V11I your
Honor «llo« m* *," A^ain tim oourt intejrrupted Kaylng.
*X 6Uia*t want any off»r iaad**" Oouneel th«n aBk«<d if h«
«a0 tv underttand that tb» oourt had strloken out all
th« evideno«» and tiie oourt said, "i liaTa,- •▼•ry bit of it.*
KxQf>?tion wns <3uly noted b^ th« defendant* to «!)11 the
rulings rwferrffd to. We are c©nfid»nt that no authority
will bo found oontrary to tho ropeated holdings of thia
oourt tc iho «ff«ot that 0Dunfi«»l haro thf; right to mako
an off«r Of proof for th«» t«o»fold pwrpo»e of informing
th« oourt vhftt in expooted to be proved and of preeerring
an o^et^ptioa to the oxolu anion of tho off red OYidence,
6ftffi«ad ▼. CQOtt . 33 111, Apj>, 317; fjook T. JgHfiHE*
61 111, App, 8fi»; ?id*lity anu Oaoualt^ 00 . y, ^oiso . 80
III. App, 499. In Maxwoll T. jiateol . 9^ ill. App. &1&, tho
refusal of th« oourt to allo«r oouna<9i to state what ho
txpeotod to prove lay a witneeo, was held to be error*
"beeauoe wo are unable to tell frotn anything in the reeord
but that the propoaed evid^mce of the witneoe WH>e both
caapetant end matarial, and we are unabl* to peroeiva how
the trial judge eould dataroinc that master any better thus
we a»n**
Vhilf" the faat that thie witneas had only beaa
found the night previous to the day on whidh he testified
and had therefore not had an opi^/ortunlty to refreah hi a
reeelleotioa« nay not hava been a proper ground for a new
trial, we deea it :^ropsr for this oourt to examine the
affidavits ia the reoord whi <3h werr filed in support of
thet e»}tion, from whi c^ the f/iOta wl\ioh oounael was try*
ing to bring out by this witaeaa, appear, Frosa then*
-10.
affidarits it «9P««ra that this wliniraa «•• angased to haul
aavaral bajrr«I» of ^Malqr, upon tha oooaalos about whieh bt
t«atifl«d, from 3065 K. 92ad atrat^t t» a aalooB at tJba a»m«r
•f BaaanalM aTaau* and 88tb street; that h« dlti that wax^
vith a yeXlaw, Atakad axi»r«»a« va«oa pund tvo harseat that ha
laad«4 tha harrels at about elaren «*a3.o«d( in th«» morning
and shortly thRr«!>after he drove north in Caanarelal aT««Ma
ia 88th street «h*>re he tujraed vaat to iSaMmaha avenue;
that h«> cnj«e aorosiA a hoy at COBsneroial avenue nn^ 38th
etroei oarryiag aa uahrelia oloaeXy over his head, hiding
hi a head froia viev; that the hoy ima going a«ra«s 88 th
etreet fren the north to the south; that the driver swung
his taaa to the north; and the hoy fell south of the toast
and the wagon ]^aased to the north of wh*r^ he fell; that
the streets were wot ana slippery; that the wagon was ooT*
ored with a tari^ulia and th« driver va« voaring a eay
pulled dovn over his eyas to protect Mm frc»a the rain;
tlut the wagon was letter«<i, ** Christ -^hudohha* Furniture
& Piano ^vinga* that after i^aaaittg the oomor in Question,
the witness ii»rooeeded aboat a hledk, where he met one l)ank«rt«
(an eaplayaa of the sailer of the whisky referred to) who
iMiled hin; that h« preee< ded to hie destination and then
returned on foot to th« oomor in question hut the boy had
diaappoared*
If oottftoel had been ponsitted to nake thia offer
aa he should have been, we arv of the er>lnion that the
evid^noe referred to should have been held to be oosvotont
and its weight ahould havo be«>n left to the jury. If was
for the Jury to aay what offset ahould be given to the stato*
Meats of th<" witaoas to whidh %hr^ eourt saean to havo tak«i
nx wf-^-Tf^^ #«<rjur»
i?sJ;<i •
,h'v%»«i
exception and «ltoth«r th<Qy dleoredited the witnffse or w«r«
to b« exfflaitK^d (ee far ae Xhr- tii»« of th« eo^mriend* «a»
Ovino«rn«d) l»jr th« fact %fml it had h»pp«»nff4 tvo yemr« pr«i*
TiouBly «n«i th« wiinffs heid had n& oo'msicn to think of tte«
oecurrcaoe «lnoc and (eo fitr Aft tite iciientity of th« Wy was
ocnor^riHRd) by th« f««t that th» b«y was oaverad by an u»»
brt>Ila and tha uritnaaa** oap pr«*Tanted a q1o6« obaervation
en M* part, Th* reoor^i cUeolo»«« th© further faot, whioh
inks Rubaittad In aapport of tha motion for a nctw trial an
nairly dlsi oot '•rad ^irld'man, th«t fitter tJiiu wltnaae had
tAetified, «n lnT#»tigatloa of this aale and «l?'livery of
whlaky had diaoloead ih«r inToi^?* and th&«. It wan dai«4
*Sapt«mb«r f, 1917," vrMoh is th« data of th«f aoeid<!^t in
quofttion*
7ha dafandtoit put D^nkert on th6< utiind ae a witneos
in oorroboratA^A of Wyrobak but th? oourt k«ept out .aoet of
th« t«ftiAiOiiy h« tried to giva; on th? ground that all the
teetioo^y of i^^yrobak h^d be«n etrieken out and th<? witness
•aid ha h^^^d not witnaaaad th«» alle^ged aoeiii<nt. Htm beeausa
he oould not gire the e»sct data of the delivery by ^rebeka
although he sai<i it was on a rainy day and about 11:3C A.M.
aacL that It was "about the 7th of September, * » » beonuso
it was rirht after oehool etartPd,"
Ciret2B«tontial evidenws is entitled to du« con»
ftlderatioa just ae dirnot erid^noe is. Certainly it should
not be rul«»d out as iaooapetent on tlif^ ground VuA it does
not oorr9e?ond in every detail ^ith th« other evidenoc in
the oaee. The faot that k. vitnes:; giT^n testimony whi ah
does not oerreopond in every respect with oth«r teetlciony
•r with «teitt«d f«ai» 9t mmyn. he (Munnot t^ittt th«^ aacAet
dmt« of anotcarrAno^i ebout whieli lie has Imil ao vooaftioa
te thlidE or talk for two /viurs, 1b a aartc of th« truth
of his t«etiBeH3r tathor tbaa th« coatmzy.
OOKpi&int Is fluuio of otrtain inotruotioni. it
1b QontenAeti th«t the oourt erred in ins tru otliMs the Jury
that* "Tho pli&latiff !» not iMund to pntr^ hisi e«ee beyond
o raaoonablo deuM but Is only %ound to prove It by o prt»
p9ndf^r»n<i« of the evidenoe. ** That instruotloa «nio projper.
Ae to complaint nadie by the d«fond«nt of th« oourt' e ruliaga
in Modifying an inRtruotion and in refusing oertaiti others*
our oplBiOB io th»t ther(<> «ao ae error, Tim «ttbjeet«»akatt*r
tf the refuaed Inetruetlone ae well as thj».t of the jpart of
tlie Modified lastruotlon* whl<ih tJ^e court struck outt v^*
eufflolently eorered by the laetxuotions inhloh the (^urt gava.
Zt would be inpoeelble within the liralte of thlo
ofilaitfa to dia<mee fully th^ condaot of the trial oourt of
which defendant oeaiplaina. Of course* aa th# plaintiff
argute In his brief « every unguarded ox^^reselon of the oourt
cannot be treated as error requiring a rorersal. But a ears*
fal exaatlnation of the record in thle aaf« dlsdLoees the fact
that the trial court rej»aatedly broke into the ex»mlaatioB
of defendftnt*s vitnesses ana out opanoel off frcaa a proper
line of inquiry, often addr<^s«ing remarks or questions to
the vitness or coiussel which oould not have been latorpret*
•d by tlte Jury In aay other way than as a olear ladloatioa
that the oourt wss of the opinion that the witn«!»e wee not
to hfc bellevftd or that the defense which the defcfnd&nt was
eadeavoring to establish wna not to be credited or evc'n oea*
sidf^red seriously. Repeatedly the oourt took witnesses la
• 13»
iHina and eon<iuot«d a lonta eross •xaialRatioQ of thi'm hln*
e«lf. At on9 point h« »«lc<»a qu* &tion» of one of d^ft-nA^
©nt*8 •t»5)loy«*» incLL «mtliig that h« sttron^l^ tuupeciftd that
d«f«nd&iit night i)av« done oc^mtMn^ to cono«Al th«^ idMstitjr
of the vtt^on vhioh plaintiff olwiaed vaa th^> one nhioh hn&
TWR OT»r hin, Th^ reiasirlco of th^ court in oonnoetion with
th« toetlmony of a nuualoor of th@ vitn<»8ft<^6 «>»«! such at to
indi«fito to t3a« Juigr tttint th« oourt aoitJaer boliered the
iKitneofi nor nttrtoh«<t «ny yaIuo or wole^ht to hio tef>ti«
aony*
'^« hafe Mlrtmuj- r«»ferreci to tosie of lU'-*'* ln»
stano<;»* #hil<^ th« yotrd ouixftrintoncitnt w&e oa ihc' stand
he tOBtified that, th<» only 'wsgoa of tljt' dfcfendfAnt in the
yard aoiureot t© th« ooene of the aoeldi^nt, of th^ type
which was involTttd here, J^ad not 1»o«n oat of \.h*- >)ard on the
day in <|u«^0tiOB until aft«r one o'clock in Xlm afternoom
He w&a then ^ked what CJalle4 thai f&et to Me mind ana he
anevered that it was "tm fact that are had iafuiriee two
or three days after tAie^* eome person oaiae ever to the
of floe and said thst tn«y thought one of our wajiions >»d
hart soaebody." Here the court reoaariced, *Well« what has :
that got to do with youur raa&embering two or three days bs»
fore that, at a particular hifeur it was in your yard¥* ^st
of the following half doa«n pages of the reooro oonsists of
a s})arp oross*exaiBi.n«tion of this witaees by the ooart that
indioatsd that his opinion was that th« witness did not knew
what he was talkini; t^Uout* Xher** w r*? a nu««#»J of other
sistilar inetano«is. That such re^tiixlrs »a«>t have influenced
ths minds of the Ju«y, and that being true, cone ti tuts
ground for reversal, has been repeatedly pointed out by our
Sajpre^ Court. I)eBhler ▼. flegra , 3£ 111. 368; Andreas y.
•X4.
i ^«%eh«m . 77 111. 877} O.li ». .R.R. Y. »Xl4M«i . 12fi 111. 4«1.
&U0I1 Iv. the Ota* •▼•a %h0 4«h it ma^f b« oea««d«d that thf rt
sMky haT* be«a aom« bacim for the oourt*« oplnioae and rvaarks •
C. C. Ry. 00, T. iBaroth . US 1 JU. App. 29*; O.C air. Co. v.
»all . 93 111. App. 411.
ielaintiff J»ak«8 th« point that 4nfmn&(unt oaonot
•Mipiain of th? <toiidu<rt of th« oourt l»«o«ttB« It intarpoevd
nonobjootloa te it. v« fin4 th« reoord aboniriff ntuMrous «3e»
oaptiona noted bjr tha def^nds^nt to the action of tb^ oourt.
Manjr of the queetioae and r<nsarka raferrod to v«re put or
■ad* in th* aeuroe of a running fXre and Mrosis fira batvaaa
tlic eourt. th« vitnaaa and oeunaol. te hava put in objeotioas
and axoaptioaa to all tlMo* ^t^^otioaa and raiaavlca and te tha
ooaduat of tha court, vouid havo plaoad oouaaal for d«fea4»
aatf in thft ayoo of th« jur3r« in an aTOia nort vaibamuiaiag
li^fat than ha doubtleao waa hy raaaon of tha oourt*a atti*
tuda. Ae TOO aaid 1^ our Si^prmax C^urt in O'Shafj i T. gtoola .
aiS 111. 358 • whara a atoilar aituatioa was pr^aantad.** th«;
law gaaraataaa tha defandant a fair «ad inpaii;ial trial.
the Muraa parauad Ity tho prc^aiding jud^a amounted to a danial
of t)4is right."
tha 4udff£i«nt of the Suparior Ccurt i» r<«veraad aad
tha oauoa ia rattamdad to tha Superior Oourt for a nev trial,
RWSRSSB AMD HKMAKI»BD«
lAlfLCK, P.J. AHiJ O'COiOJOlt, J..Ct.KCim,
337 • 25316
WA^,\
«ll««f
SiOfiUSL ALPORT, \
Ap9<iXI#nt.
<m QKLOkOO,
2191.^' 641
MR. JmiKm fmm&QM 4«Uver«d the opinion of
tte «ourt«
Th* plaintiff* Wats, brought this action to recoT«r
dUMgigM oooaoionod by the failure of the d^fendaiit, Alport •
to earvy out the protrieions of a oontraot in vritiag undor
the tersM of vhioh Wats agreed to buy 9,000 "Rueeian Houbloo,
Ourrenour ]?ro-war iaeuo** for I&50.00* The plaintiff paid the
defendant $100. CO en the purchase prioo when th^ oontraot
tme exooutod a^d it «ao proTlded that the defendant was to
deliver the roubles en Juno 1« 1918* at vhi^i time the plain*
tiff vas to pay the balaaoe of '^A^O^CO, The defendant filed
an sacndod affidarit of merits in which the execution of the
eoatraot wae adoitted. The affidavit further eot forth that
"at the time the oontraot was entered into it was the inten*
tion of the parties thereto to procure the Xussian Roubles
mentioned in oaid oontraot in the J^apire of Japan* and for
that purpose it wao agreed by the partiee that the defendant
should » » * Journey # » » to %h» Bnpiro of Japan for the
purpooo of purehasing the Ruseian Moubles ealled for in said
oontraot** S thai it wao agreed between the partiee that the
rubles ehould be purchased in JsMpaa and delivered by the do*
fondant and aoeepted by the plaintiff under the termo of
th« oontmot, "and no 110 ttther*; that therffaftttr th« ^.•fimim
ant want to Japan and poroteaed an amount of roablee suffi-
ol«nt to deliT«r to th« plaintiff those mentioned in the
oontract; that th«r aftar ^on or about Juno 1, 1918** the
defendant returned to thie; country and a >plied to tho yedet^-
al Beaerra Board for pmrmlsgion to import thr rubles but was
a4viaad that an tabargA had been plaoed upon the import of
R«08lan RoubXtta and that hla application to iaport thooe he
had purohased vaa for the time being refused. The affidavit
further set forth the proTinione of the aet of Sengrees en*
titled *An Aot to XHsfine, Hegulate and Punish Trading with
the Xneagr* and for other Purposee!** under which eaid «nbar8»
was declared. It also set forth thnt at th« tine the con*
traet in question was entered intOt the Federal Law did net
require a llo^nse to in^ort Russian Roubles and alleged that
at that time the parties did t»t t»iro such an e-vent in oon*
taaplation and did not know that suoh a lioeava would be re>
quired to import said roubles, but that the embargo was de«
elared subsequently end while the defendant was in Japan.
This affid&Tit of aerits was stricken on motion of
the plaintiff and the defendant was defaulted for want of a
suffieient affidavit of merits. A jury was then sworn to
to s^sesfi the plaintiff* s d«aageB» which were fixed at $300
and Judginent for the plaintiff was entered for that aacunt*
from whioh the defendant has perfected this appeal.
In our opinion the aXfida-vlt of merits was properly
ntridcen. The defendant oould not be permitted to show, in
defense of this aetion» that at the tine this eo||traet was
exeeutod the parties agreed that it m&m to apply to Russian
Koubles purchased in Japan and x» other. It was not set uy
'41 A VitMV
in the affidavit tliat th« parti«» iMd any additional agr***
mint in writing. Tba written adntraot, »«t forth in the
atataaent af olaia. th« execution of whioli waa adaitted,
ntat be preeuiaedi tc include all the proTl alone ef the agree*
»ent into whioh th<*»e parti (^e entered. Bu| ; y , e,rB, Index Jg'ub. po ,
▼. Aaer« Shoe Polieh Co .. 169 111. App. 618. There is no in*
probability nor uno<«rtainty about any ef the terma of the
eeatraet. It hnd to do with the purohaae and siat of Ruaeian
Keubles without any mention ae to where they were to be pro*
eured. The defendant oould not be permitted to shew that h*
had an under standiiiit or an oral agreement «rlth the plaintiff
that the eontraet had to do aolaly with the roubles that ha
wae to purohaae in 3a9mn, The eontraet w&a in writing and
under ■•*! and eucds an exeoutory oontraot oannet b» altered,
changed or nodi f led by any p^rol agreement* /»lgohuler t«
achiff . 164 111, 298; locky ▼. Jiarion, 269 111. 342.
Tlie defendant oonplaina of certain inetructioaa
giTon to the jury on the queeticn of dajcsagea. caa iaatruotioii
told the jury that it waa not necaaeary for the plaintiff to
purehaee the ajBaeuRt of roubles contracted for, ia the open
aarket. oa defendant* e failure to perform* but that the reault
V«&^ the tame aa if the plaintiff had bought a like quantity
•f roublec in the fmrket. That iaetruotion mia oorreet. The
other iaetruetioa complained of told the jury that the meaaure
of daauftgee waa "the differeaee, if any, between the market prloa*
of the Buaaiaa Roubles covered by the ooatraet price and the
"eoa tract price at the time the aaae should have been delivered,
and in ad<itiOB thereto the one hundred dollars paid by the plaia«
tiff to the deff^ndant.** That instruction waa alee correct.
It le further urged tliet error was oomoaitted in the
v«S»
•4.
ass«»«m«nt of dauMged at #300, Whll« it Ita tru« that it
appaara trvm the aviaenea that the Kusaian Koublas rfvt
had what might he aall«d a maricet Talua, it is Rhevn that
they wre auhject ta purohai.^^ and aala in the open raarkat
on Juna 1. 19X8 and b«for« and aftojr that dato. PreounaUjr
the Juroro* verdiot included the 4100 vhieh the plaintiff
Itod paid the dafondaitt on the purchaaio price of th<? roubles
oOTored h/ tho oentraot, and fixad $200 aa the difforenee hetwcvm
the oontraot prieo and vhat the iury heliered frea the eridenoo
it would haTO ooat the plaintiff if he had gone into tho warkot
on JTuao 1, 1918 and jj^rohaaed tha 5,000 roubles. That differ*
onoa of 1800.00 was baoed on a priee of I15.00 a hundred.
A aunber of witnesaoo testified en this subjeet and the prlooo
the/ gaTO Taried. After reading the testimony, we are of tha
opinion that the Jury was warranted, from sueAi; teotiaeny, ia
conoluding that tho roubloa would haro oeot the plaintiff
(X9*00 a hundred in the open murket on the dato ia question.
Vo find no error in the reoord and therefore tho
jttdgmont of tho Maaieipal Oiovurt is affizuod.
TAXLCii, P.J, ASD 0*G(MSOH, J. amOORm
so • 28S»7 \
xiWABD J. aMitm^
i^lftlntiM' in Kr^T,
IHRCR TO
OJ OMXOAGO.
21
41
Mturt*
UR. JUSTXCC fHCMSCB d«liTere<i th« opinion of tta«
J^ thin writ of «rror» th« df>f«tidaiit (^rt^r* •••ks
to r«T*rs« a Ju4cMMmt for $6, COG r«QOT«»r«a l>y th« plaintiff
in AH motion ef ttte first elASe, ia the ii^unieipal Court ef
€9dm#»a o*^^ Jtt4#B»nt follovii^ th<» Y<«rdlot of a Juty find*
iac th« i*«t4i« for th« plaintiff and aaoaaaing; M» daaagoa
at thff asount naaad«
fha i^lalntiff*s stateaent of olaia allagad ttaat
hi» olaiM vaa for aroMtootural e«rri9*e roadcrod the dofi^nd*
fkot, at tho special inotanee anu requast of thft latter, upon
oral ctontraeta b«t»»«n th9 d^'fendant and his duly autlwrisad
ACttnt, on* WaXdMuit and th<? plaintiff; that the dofandani
abroad to pi^ th^ plaintiff for hie oaid oerrioee, t«a and
•»• telf paro«ntua ef the ooist of th(» building to ba areotod t
as iadie&tad by the oontrnetor*s bids in the p\m of $34C,0Q0«
«hi^ WJ3S $8,SC02 that the plaintiff fumiohod all the ser-
rices aallad for by the oontraot but that the defendant aade
IM paynente ta the plaintiff; that after the plaintiff ha*
•Cii^letad the plans and drawings oontraoted for by the de
•2»
f«ad«iit, %h» l«tt«r clectsd not i» pr«04»«di vlth the Wild*
lac aecwziiinii to th»M 9l«a« aB4 r#4«est«4 th<» ]>lalntiff*«
e«rTi9«s in furnishing a«v plana far a different buil dings
tbat, purauant to aueh r<*q[U«Bt %ht? plaintiff aHmin renderad
profaacienal s«rvie«« aa an arehitaot mmi pr«pArad naw plana
for ft building to <!iest approxijaatel/ |34C,OO0 far vhi cdi tha
dafandant agraad to pay th« plaintiff ona*h«lf of one p^r
aant of eald aiaount* or $1700, whisth snm tha d«f«ndant haa
failad and rafuaad to pajr* although all of aaid eerrio^e
bava "b^ttn r«ndared» eonplataa ana furnioued Igr tlia plaintiff;
that plaintiff's total olnins for th^ »«rTi caa r*^nder«d at tha
dafmidaat*a raquest* otaouatad to $1&»200.
Tha affidavit of merita denied th« allagationo of
tha atat«aant of olaiai. Aa va Tiav thia oaso, it preaento
only ana iaoua, naaaXy. did the dafand&nt naka th« oontraeta
for tha plaintiff* a aarTieea imd '««r9 thoea aarYicae r9nd«r«d
\Kf tha plaintiff for tha defandemtt aa tha plaintiff allagaa,
•r wtfT^ thay rnndarad for anothert That tha plaintiff r«?n»
darad eartain ar ohi ta etural a^rTieao ie not deniad.
liiiljr of thk faota praa«ntad lor the reoord, ara not
diaputad* Tha daf»ndaat« Carter, evnad a raluahle piaea of
UMlavrorad raal aatata, en trhieh thara waa a aMrtgaga for eoaa
$3C«c.'C0, Ra llatad it for aala with Olirar 4k Ona^amy , raal
•atata hrokara. Ona Harila af that fim, au^ggaatad to Carter
that tha prepartjT ha iayroTad and in that oonnaetion, ha
introduead him to a nan aaM«d Valdaaa* Cartar had no funda
%ift% ha and Vaidtoaa rnaohad an agraanaat wharalqr th« lattar «aa
to finaaoa tha ara ot ion of a building on th« defendont*a pro*
9*rtjr* Cartar and WaJlimui axaeuted a preliainary writtan
•gra«M»at ir. vhieh #«ldteaan »4S^^'f^ to "aubnit akatohaa, plana
•3.
and sp«eifi«fttlens* f«r Carter* e tt9W9mfmX, for whieh
Cartfiir «gr««d "to pigr not in «>;o«»b of oao*h«df of th«
uouttl arohitoot*o f««a»* »nd it was farthe>r oxprooolx
proTidod tlut "no ohar^« for such piano shall 1»« »ado*«
should W^J.dman fall to flnaaeo thn d«al. A^ut tho tlao
thle preliminary n4{r?«mont was ^ntftrod into by Cartor
and mldMaa, or shortly th«r«aft«r, th« plaintiff Bufldcott
vao Introdttood to Cartor hy Waldauui in th« latt«r*B offioo^
Botvoon this tiao and tho middlo of A^ril* the partioo had
a. aumbAr of oonffprenoeo, OTor «}iich thf^i« is dlsputo. It
is net denied* how«>T«r, that on April 18, 1916, Carter
and Vol Asian onterod into a final and aoro foinal oontraoi
eoTorlng the oroetion of a building on Cartor*e property*
This oontraet proTid<^d« anong ether things* that "final
plans and speoific&tionp shall be furnished by oaid oen»
traotor (VaXdnuui) prmptaeei b>y said Arthur 3, Bu^ett * '^ i^
and all arohitoot'e foot* in oonneotion «i th eaid p^laae and
spooifieationfi and the oreetion of said buildings shall bo
three per eent iW») of the oost of the na torial and labor
for said buildings, to bo paid on eooond nortgnge notes
heroiaaftor mentioned. » <^ • ?he said oontraotor shall
rftceiTO as oasQ>«nsation (in addition to cost of Inbcr »nd
aaterial) ton per oent (10^) of the oostc thereof, and
oaid ton per oent (10^) • together witiii th« three par oent
(3^) for arehi toot's foas. shiai be paid to a^^la contraotor
iQr aaid ovnor. by tho delivery to said oontraotor by said
ovaer of the ooeoad mortgago aotof^ hereinafter m«»ntioned.*
It aas further exproasly proTided in this agreemont that if
it tranepirec*. that tlie cost of the labor scid natt^rlals for
the building as eallad for by the final plana, exoeeded
t30C,000« either party oould withdraw and toraiaato the
■ ijiiis>%jp
•4<-
«gr««ment on giving a stlpulate^il notloe.
Zt 1« further shewn hjr ih« eirl(im«« an<i not
Ainputitd, thftt »u«lc«tt h«I(i tocLOic on tu« pli^ja vunti) th*
contrnot b«tw««R 0«rt«r «nd ,^'«Iit»n«n hnd }»9»n «x«out*4 antS
ih«w) he vr«at fth««d, t^ pr«|>ai-«d |^laan« en i>!Ftaiob oerinin
bids w#r« taJcnn and it tran«pit«4 that the Wilding van
going to eoft over #90^000 ba^y^oa^i th« nwftuat #Al<Sa«a h»A
V«i«a nbl« to mrrnnfi* for, to finanoe th<? d««l» and iffaldaea
gnv* up hit 0ffort» ancl in July hie eontmot with Cart or
nan formally oaao«lla4.
Barric thi^n brought a n«w man into the* deal* ena
aattoohalk, who finally finanead the «>r«otion of the build*
ing that wan put up on thv (i«f«n4ani*B pr«p«<»rty« Buak«tt
sad* an effort to haTO Sottoohalk «n${aga hisi as the arohi*
ta«t on this building but h* deelinad, finally proj^oning tn
haT« Itt^att aairoolaitd with hin arohiteot on a waf'icly oalaxy»
wMoh BuQ^att rofuoad. Oatteehalk ongagAd hlis own arohitoeto*
vha preparad all th« plans and spoeif icmtions for th<^ build*
lag as sraotad at « ooot of about $700, 000* After Buokctt
was out sf tli« dsal ha saw Carter* and, at hi« r«qu««t»
Carior shswad hi« a «apy of this ValdSMi* Darter oontraot*
ttuokoti askad for a eopy of it, saying hm was going to got
aft«r Ww^4jmm, Hs did not ask Carter for any «cn«y, or slaia
that Cartor had hlrad hi» sr was indebted to hin in any way,
but about a aonth lat<»r hs wroto Cartsr r«i|tt«stiag jmyaant
of $X0,2&0 for th« svrvioes tm had r«ad«r*d«
Tho faots thus far r(?f«rr»d to are not disputod in
ths r«eord. Harris and aottsehalk t(?etifi«ci to ooaTsrsations
thcyr had with the plaintif r, Buokf^tt, and although h« took
the sia»d in robuttal h<^ did net deny th«% fiarrie t««ti«
:-imr
fi»4 that Bucic«ti bftd tola hi« tHat h« lia<t \M<m 9ai»loy«4 on
thin Job lity ^wX^buoki that aftor Waldiiuua failed to finwnoo it.
Harric took Butdcott OTor to #•• eottsohalk and triod to la*
iik«« tli<* lattor to employ him, (tolling OottoehaUc, in
Sttek»tt*o yr^aoneo, thnt J^okott «aa th* nrohitoet wim
tm4 ls>c»en cmplo/ed Iqr 9nl4nan); tluit Buokott hs^A Qon«eat«d
ia f* to eo« aottae)«alk« with Harria, onljr ai»on baiait roloaaatf
Igr tal^toaaj tbAt Buolc«t% aiat«4 in eomroraation vith Oattsafaalk*
thnt v«14«nn kn4 on^lajrad him; tha.% at another tino >u<dt«Ttt
ani4 he ooulA not nffard to ai»ott4 «ngr wmr» nonay on this Joli
tlMta wan nooananigr a« ha vaa t&kinc * ohanoo an it»* that if
VnlAana nould a6van«« Mm aaiia aen«!y on it h«* oeulti mako
mere rapid pragroaa; thnt waXdmnn said, in tlM skr^oraioe af
Bnekatt, that ho did not iHtaiiA to iq;»and any mara moaagr
than noo^aaary iHt^mnMg unaor hi a ngr««m«nt with Oartar^
tba lattor wovtld b« hald harmloaa unlaan ha (Waldaian) eould
raiaa a aafficK^nt lean} that Buakott aaidi h«!) vould do th<?
varic in tho «voninKa inaaanioh aa it wna a gnmm af ehanoc
vhathor th^ gat tho aontxmet «r not; that ^okatt told
Jiia (Uarrio) that ha «aQ»«etad faldnan te pay him far tha
««xk he had dona; thai an anath^^r aaonaion* BudEott told
him that Vaidmnn man tad him to taka hio oQwnic&iOBK in tho
form af a aaaond mortgag*.
eottaehalk tooUfiod that in hia initial talk with
Haryia isind tho plaintiff Bnokott. ho aakod Buokr^tt what hia
relation «»a with Cmrtor anci that Bu«icott ropllod that ho had
a eantraet vitu WaidmM whioh proridad that ha wao to ba tho
nrohitaot far tha htillding if Valdaan oeald finanoa it,- that
ha h«sd no oail'tmat whataror with Cartar*
•6*
fiaiv th« plftlaiiff 4id not d«iii3r this t««tin«flgr
in r^WttAl, h» did «1t« sone teetinon^r in ^jutting i* hit
auULa MM« vdtaioh ia part at l«a«t oontfmdiot«4 th<»»« wit*
a«SMc f«r the <l«f«n4«at. 9Wr inetanGe, )i« t^ntifi^d th«t
viMB he w«nt witn tterriii to ••« aotttiohAUc* he iasii>t«4
upon going oaljr «• rapr«««ntlng Cftrt«r. Ed further t«»ii»
fi«4 tli«t he toU aettaehalk that Oart«r had hirad hi« as
his arshitsot*
Th«r« «as B shairp sonfllot in th^ taetinpoyof tha
|4»intiff who slainad the hiring:, en th« one he&tui, und th«
d fandant« who d«ni«a it, on th« other. Buoicett t«tttin«d
that in his first talk with Cartar* vhcn hs was iatroduoad
to hi« Iqr Vaiidttaa in tha lattar*e affiaa, ha told Oart«r
that ha inid<»rataa4 that ararami^mants h«d ba«ii ottda to take
oara 9f tk» fiaaaaiag of the hvUldiag and that "this is is
¥a a tva and ona»iMilf p«r oent arohiteeitiral i^'b", aad that
Carter r«pli««, "Yas, that is right"; that on anothf^r oaoaaioa
Gmrtt^x told hia that if the oeat ran higher, h« ooald staad
it; that BtanAtatt said h« undi^xstoad Cartar had property
vhioh ai«fht 1»« tumad into this deaX, and Carter rwpliad,
"Xas"; that ha told Carter that tha suattar of not#e, to
vhioh yalteaa had rmffrr^A (tha sacond siortgaga aotas that
Waldiaan wanted Buokatt to taka) isttst ba T»ry d<>'fittital/ uasdar*
stood, far ho had haatjr aarrjriiag ataargas.* tiuit ha oould af«
fard to taka #&«000 in aatas if ha gat %ht> hal«aaa in oash.
"ahiah X toXd Mr, ValdoMa*. and that Carter rapliad. »Vry
tMlI« that aaunda lika a fair prepasitiea*; that 9a another
•aansioa ha told Cartar ha vaa going to aanaid arable aaq^nsa
in this voA and that it irould eost a good daal to pat the
noi^ in flmal »te|p«« "eutidi I waat jrour aasaruieft in th«
aaiti«r 1»«fortt I proomm^,* «a4 t^t Oaortcr replied, *Y6u
haf* mjr ateurano* ami 2 will ••« that you are treated
riftlxt"'; that at Ikift ti«« Sattaahallc oaaa into th<» deal
IM, Buokett, iald Gutter that h* wanted a Tery definite
und' re trading at te their relaii^^na** that he .wanted te
Icnev JttBt whAt hie relation to uetteehalk would he and
what his remmeration woiad he in thn n«v deal, r^nd that
Carter eaid, *X will give you an additional one^half per
eent oTer your figure in the prerioue deed if y^^Vk will
handle thie new deal through the drawing of plane and epeoio
fioatloaa and th« taking of figuree** and that he told Oarter
tee would aeeept that offer*
On the other han*. Carter teetified that in one of
their first talks he told Btt<dcett that hie arrangewmit with
Wali^saa was that the arehiteot*e ooianieeion was to ho half
the usual amounts that he wanted it underetood thstt he had
no aene/ to gtf into such a proposition and that ^'afdtaan h«d
«ad<r>rtaksn to fimy»oo the huildiag and furnish all the nsnejr
aeoesaarar for ewery purpose in eennoettion with it; that ho
asked Bttokett if he felt he (Oarter) oouid be pre teots4«
vitii an arohitect working with the eontraotor *inst*sdi of
onployed hy »••* that Hudtett oaid that it was oooing to he
the siistoasjy wax: that he talked with Budcett about the
ionM oftlM ecntraot he had made with Weldt«am; that on one
eceasioa when tal4taan« Buokett and the witness were together*
thi^re was s«Me talk about 3uskett*s ooatpeasation end thst
luekott said to Wal4aMui« *You don't eicpeot no to take sll my
nsasQr in paper do jrouT" and that laldaaa paseod it off and
said ssmethittg te the of feet that thiqr would not talk auout
it than,* *Vo Will fix that up"; that it was during his soooad
•8-
talk wltn Buok«tt ihAt "Itol4 hln iQr a]>rang««i« i* with Mr.
WaliaHia «a« that h« Inui to furnish a« th« «rcMt«otur»l
••rriee at oii«*l!wZf tlk« ttsui&l f«« « « » th«t Mr* VftldBiaa'a
•Otttraot with n« iras to provl<&« the funds for fiBaaoiag
the dftal rsmd that la th« sTeot that he oould not do so I
wui to ]»• jrat to no oxposo* in ooanftetioa with it*; that
Baskott was pr««ent whan thft witness eoniplainiid About tho
d«lajr and Waldnan said, *if you mre not vM&tisfisd with
what wa ar« abls to <io juad I «a not ahlo to finAnee th«
4onl, wo will hand you your oontraot hadh;*; that on ono
•foaaion Buokett told hia taXdmaa was hlamlng him (Budestt)
haoftttso thA figures wer«! runninis so high and thmt he fait
a hit restless and that he did not want to ha doa^od in this
matter ,• if this deal Ie; going through* 1 want to know that I
am soiiv to got a aqiiara deal** And that he (Carter) assured
Bttdkett hs would not oonaant to an/tMng else«- that he did
net see how Buokett eould be '^dwap^ed*' as he was the archi*
taot oaaod in tbe oontraot he (Garter) hmd with Valdman. and
*•• far sa I a» oonoemed X wo ild see that ytrn get a s<iuare
deal hilt 1 think ttr. ValdsHUi has no euoh intention aa that";
that Bu<Acett said what ho wanted was Carter* a nssuranee that
IM would se«» that he (Buflkett) got a st^nare deiU* Hs test!*
fied further thnt when the figures rrm u|» oyer |50*00C ahewe
the aao 4it VaXdnaa was able to arrange for in hie (Efforts to
finanoo the deal, he (Oarter) offered to ralsa |1&,000 on the
oqttitjr he had in aMth«r pieoe of propert]r« if that would do
amy good. Ho testified that whan Harris proposed hringlng
gottsohalk into the deal, ana taking Buokett oirer to oao hia
with the plana* Buokett first ohjeoted. saying that ho oould
not do that without «aldaaa*s ooasent and that Waldaan said ho
would be willing to hawe Buokett take the plana to (jottsohalk;
►?,-
.»f^>
•9o
ttet lAter Bu«k«tt %nl4. Ma, *if tMe Aid de«X h&» faU«a
through* vhgr* X «« go ins <»^^* &f%«r this Jo^ if Mr. Oott*
»«)ial]e 1« goiae to 8«t it;* that h* (Oarter) ofi«r««( t«
talk with aottftoMOk in Buoli«tt*s iiit«(r«»t end try to got
Ma to retain Buokatt aa thf^ arehitaet and that he did
talk with oattaohaUe fm^i ioid Buokatt about it« Ho tosti*
fiad a>aut Budratt aoking to «•« a oopy of hie contract
with Waldaas aftar walteaa had djroppod out of tha d««l»
Buokati aayiag hM iatandad to "aaa* ffalilMaa or **go aftar
hia"; that Bu«k«tt said that while ha knaw the gaaaral
tarao af the oontraet* iM had net boon fflMsiXiajr with aoaa
•t tha datailo af it; that h« {Clart«?r) had mt oioaed hit
daal with aettsehalk at th«f tioa Buokott hrak« with tha
Xattar Mid that hm told ; imt to Buekatt at th<* tic^ia. Qartor
o9«aifio«lly d«»ni«d aaoh at th*^ ccnTaraationto Bu<&eti oXaiaad
to hava had with hia aanearniag hie <s<aiii»«nsatlon aa tastifiad
to V Budtett*
On thio raeerd ^a ar« of tha opinion that tha
Yardiot for tha plaintiff io not supportad hjr tha manifaot
vaight of tha ari danaa. The taotiaaagr of tha plaintiff
ia antireljr without oorroho ration, eithar hy tho tevtlao^
of othar witnaoeas or by stay tmett aau eirouaatanoea in*
▼olTod in tho oaoa, whilo iimt of the dofendaat io oloarljr
otrroharatad by bath. It 1« of oourao trua, as tha plain*
tiff eontanda, that Bu<fcatt oould not ba bound by tha oon-
traota <mtar«d into by Carter and Waldaaa and thasa sontraots
ware not adaissibla as binding Buokett but they were adaiasibla
aa taading to eorroborata the t«sttaa«y of Carter to the offeat
that ho *u%nrm^ into no oontraet or agraaaent with Buokett aa
tha Xattar Aaiaad. It ie evieient that Carter, having aada a
contract with faldaan, whereby the latter was to finanea tha
• 10-
•r*«tion of A tniildLLag on Cart'^r** 9]rei>«rt]r «n<i wh«r«)gy
h» v»» furtlwr to fumiali th» arohlteotural 8«rYle«» andt
IM •llomd i^ an the oetet of th» building* th<«rcfor. would
iMTe ae •o«iisi«ii *te oontraot for «ueh ottrrioeo ialouiclf iKith
th«> Tory arohltoot «ho»« o«7t1cwo fiFftldmaa h»<i in hio ««;rto*
■Mnt. eontmotod to ^roTido. TImt BudEott kxiov of XhM Wald-
acin* ^:«rt«r oontraet, antt In a general vajr vhi^t It proridod.
«« do not dau1»t froia tlM! «vld«ne«.
V« ar« l^irthar of tli» opinion that %h» trial eourt
•rrad in dftnying tha d«f«ndaat*e motionR to iaatruot the JU17
ta find tKa iaouaa in his favor »aada at the «»loa« of tli«
plaintiff *a oaaa and at the oloao of oil %hn evld^not*. That
tho plaintiff, la hia otataaant of oloiia, allagoo <^aoiyf a jjgi
tjaati w ith th« dftfendant wh«r«^ th«» latter prottio^d to yojr
id» 9S«900 far hie onrTioaa tindar the firat oontraet. cmd
$X,7t)0 undar th<^ oaeoad o<»»tmdt« m^ further allagao that
tlM d^«idaat hoA fallad to pa;^ hiai that ooi^^eneatlott al*
though ha had fully parformed all tho aorriooa oontraoted
far, ateito of no douht. Xt la a^ually olaar thAt the plain*
tiff*o «!Tld«n3« failed tu» auike out a ariwa facia oaoe in
eupport of that atataaant of dlaim* Wa have rmftirrmd to all
eonraraatlOBo taetif led to hy the plaintiff In ovppert of
hie diala that €!art<^r had ax^reooly proaiaed to pay hijt SirjC
an the oeet af tha huilding at originally oontemplatad, or
^••800« It will not be neoeaaary to repaat them here, in
our opinion tboee oon-reraatloaa do not naka eat a aontraot
aa the plaintiff olaiaa, Ho thing that the plaintiff hiaaalf
taatlflaa that th*^ d«fend«nt aaid, can he held to a»ouat to
the expreae oontraet on whloh the plaintiff haa broug^ht thla
aoit, Tha wordo which th« plaintiff dlaiaa the defendant
aaad are aiallair to those iavalrad in Breltenetein ▼•
■4.
Xli4wnd»wi J^tVMI t^nA muhim jo. . X«2 Hi, App, 3»9, at
9ftge» 4C£U444, wiaum Ujis matt, h«l<i th&t tb« lftr^(Uttg«
UMd did not niklc«-0ut n <30||ir«ot. there le a largo AMOtiat
of oTid^«« In tli« reoord iwrolrlac th« Otttaioelen of tojw
ions plans nnd (ricotohfoo to a»ri»r Mid hio oritleioai of
tium mnd ek^agoo nuido in th^m At M«i oug^EO^'tion. nono of
vlaielk o^n havo osur tondoncgr to oitiyj^rt plttittiiff*« Alloga*
tloas thot oa^rooo mntraote ««re «i^nt«rf d into* ^on if %hm
«vid«nc« tended to auJco out a« i«pliod oimtmott '«hieh vo
dsulstt it could !(M»t oupport this rerdiet tmd JIudgBumt. for
hoving d«olar«d en an 93s&re.mt sontvistet* tho plaintiff oould
not r«MTor on tl)«? t^toory of nn io^liod oontroot.
As to th« soQoad oontrftot into irhio^ plaintiff
dooXojroo tbo d« fondant onterod with hiw, th« plaiatiff'o
«vid«»«« dooo mak9 out « ttr;^ »« faoio onoo to the «ff«ot
tliot ih0 eoRtrnot vas utadtt, but %h&,t eTid<tno<f> not only
failo to »ho« Ihat tlm plaintiff fulfilled hio part of
tlM» eontraet and «nd«rad th« o«rrie«:!S oontraot«d for but
it affirmatlTol/ «l«nio that th.p mntrtkty io th« eaoo, flnia*
tiff*s *Tld«ao« no to thio oontraot is that dofondant ogrood
that h« wo aid i^gr th« plaintiff tho additional aaouat otiiraip
Iftiod* »if you 9ill handl* thio nf^ doal t>irough the drnviag
of piano and opooifi cations ano the taking of figureo,*
Plaintiff makoa m pr»ton«o of haying done that for ho hia-
•olf testified that upon hio fAilnro to ohtaln a oatiofaotojy
ojrrmngeiaent with aot'.aohalk, h« got out of the doal and thon
vont to 00* i3«rtor and told Mn ho vae « through ontirol/"
and adTiood hla to do "praotioally what X hare dono,* got out."
For the ronoens stated » the Jadgaont of tho leunieipal
Oourt is roTorood with a finding of faoi»
«i
J. ««
-12*
KSVnUBUB »I7H A FXKDiXO OF FACT,
Tixmm aw VAOf i
W« fiBd at a faet that th» iafmdejat 414 n«t
contra ot witr, the plaintiff f©r hin e'-rvioeij an ali«i3;«d
mad that »u<A »arTioas as the plalatlff rendarad, v<»ra »ot
raiMlerad hy him for the cl«?f«nci«(nt, Imt far another.
TAYLCSt, P.J. AMD ©•GOJfHOK, J, OOSCOH.
42 - 2^1^79
THS FKGPLSi GT THS STATB OF IlXIl^ltJ, )
JOHN HUS
J>ef endant
Error,
) KRROR TO
MUMICIPAL QOimt
<3SP CHICAOO*
Plaiaftiff in Krror. )
219 I-A- 6^1
H«. JUSTICK THCliCON delivered th« opinion ©f the
ocurt.
By this writ of error th« defondant ooeke to reT«rs«
tho judgn«nt of the ^uniGlpal Court of Ohioago, finding Ma
and
guilty of X lying with a woman in an open/notorious state of
adultery and eentenoini; Ms to the House of Correction for
sixty lays.
It is urged oy defendant that the finding of the
oourt is against the Bianifest weight of the eyideneo and also
that the oourt erred in admitting certain oonYersationa ia
OTidenoe althou,^h they took plaoe in hio absence.
As to the first point, we cannot say that the find*
lag of the oourt is ag^iaet the manifest weight of the eon*
fliotiais eTid^moe as it is contained in the record, Imt fur*
ther, the record fails to show that it contains all the eri-
denoe heard by the oourt and in the absence of such showings
we must assxuae that the court heard sufficient eridenoe to
warrant the finding auide. People y. Adaats . 239 111. 339.
As to the lecond point although the record shows
that the defendsjit miide objection to the adwLssion of tho
.2.
•rid«no« rftferrcd t« it do«B not dicolose anjr ruling ia&<l« ligr
th« Qourt and furth«rmer« th« record at&tee that by agroomttnt
the OBSO at bar was tri«d tog(!!th«r with another case of the
sane nature in which th(> woman inrolYed in thie charge was the
defendant « and the oonversatioas referred to were had in her
presence and were adjslseihXe as to her* the caeee were tried
"hy the court, without a Jurjr and we »ust ]pre«ume that &« to
this defendant* the court consi<ic;red only sucih evidence as
was competent as to him.
We find no error in the record and therefore tho
Judgment of the Municipal Court S» affirmed.
A7FIHICKD.
fAn.CK, P.J. AHii 0*G(MSQR, J. ac^CUH.
\
107 V 2536
THK MUii'LB OF fm SfATJ! 0? lLci»^
/
a:9X» i;uaG'^iiY^ 6 oorpor«,tlo|f, and VRAK*
CIS «r. fiioep4u>sca, jDir^oi^r of H«i;iR.
tmtiOA and l^Auoition 0/ th« stat« ef
Api>elltt«,
AjPi'tiAL JTHCIi
219I.A. 641
MR, Jrosna^ THCaiSCS 4ieliT«rcd th0 opiBicn of the
ocurt.
4pp«IIant fil«>d *.in petition for vMOiAsmvMt «• ))«
Btftt«0 it in hi« b7i9f» filed by ap9«ilsjit pro »f . ^dir«et«cl«
flrotl;^* to th« HRrraml ModioaX CoXlogo CorpciratioB* ooBouuidUUm
it forttawitli to l£ou« or o«ae« to b« iaeuod from ite MoOiOftl
Collog*. tb« *Jenn«r Modioli '^Il«go,* a oortifioata of er«4»
it* for the froofaKori una •epbonero years, 4aly ox«Quto4 Igr
th« effiei*r8 of said oorporatioa* attootod tuy ita oorporat*
•oal, aft 1* th« Ottotea of its mll0$9 in iaouing certifioat*
of full oredits, if th« jlonnatt Ooliogo of l^eloetio Modioiac
and aurgery, aftor aeoepiiag aps»«ll»nto* fer«i|ps eredito a«
«»<l*ii Talent to the B.S. dogree. oubnitting hia to an exajnina*
tlon in all th« auujeeta «Nliraeed in the freolnan, eoi>ho»ore
and junior jr^man. Matriculating hin ao a senior and eonforr-
in^ tt£MBB hin th« degree and title of Seetor of Medieine* is
entitled to r«ceiTe and obtain firi»t the said eertifloatos of
ort'dit for the freehoaa and eophesMTo years freai tht^ Jenner
Madieal CelXogo, 1»«fore delireriac untc the appellant a diy*
<
/»«
loHui or oarXitiOAtm of grftteation} seoondly* dli-Aoteit %9
th« B«»n«tt College 0t :tel*eiio i^edieio* sad iaurgeyyt
lag it forthwith to ia«tt« tm4 (Hslirtr unto aippollftnt his dl]H»
lona or oertiflonio of gr doatloit, duljr oxeeutod \^ th« offioor*
of ofiiA «ozvorfttion« attestod hf lie oovporato ooal, «• 1« tK«
Ottttom of sttld oollofto in iRfuiag dipl»mo or e4»rtlfic&t««
of graduation; Utlrdljr. dir<r«ot«d to Fraaeio ff, £>iM»i»»rd«on,
direotor of tho JDopartnoiit of JRogiotratioa emd Eduoatloa* if
tlio reeipiont of a dit>l*n« trosA th« Bmmott Oollagi? of Kolootio
Xodielao aad Surgory woulo ontitlo hla to praotieo a«dieia9>
and ^yutgrnrj in th^ ^tate of Ulinoio, ooaanandiag Ma fortfawitli
to tooitto 9M4 dollTor to appellant, aftor payiag th« roQuirod
foo, a lleottoo for the praotieo of modioino ea<i ourgorjr la
tho r»tato of IlliaeiB; nn^ if t^to reoipioat of a diploma from
tha Boaaott Cell«c« of Kolootio llodioiao aad Sux^ory d09« aot
oatitlo him to praotlee aadioiae «ad mrgorgr la tha >;tato of
Illiaoio without first takiag and paoeiag an oxamiaatioa,
OUBMOidlag hifli forthwith to adait appollaat to parti eipato
ia tho oxnyniaatioa without projudioos aad that oueh further
•rdor aajT be entered in th^ pr«9iia«» ae Juotioe aagir reqiuire.*
The B|»pell««o f llt^d dosmrrere to th« petition whioh
were Buataiaed. Appellant eleoted to etnad on hio p«titioa
aad pra/od tm appeal.
Aa exwEaiaation of the petition showe it to be a
oongloaoratioa of pleadiag aad eTideno«« etateiBente of fact
aaA ooaeluoioao, aiaoty^four txpewrittea pageo ia laagih«
It wholly faile to oet forth eay propar grouado for the loouiag
of th* writ prayed for. Although the eaoe at bar iarolToo
other defendants oad ie«?uee, it ie oonelusiTely d^'teraiaed by
what tbio oourt oaid in ^00^31 f ^ r«»l Ml^helaagelo j^acell|L ▼•
Iwajwt^ ^ioiae Colleao . 2u& III. App. 324, As was th«>re said.
HfUi
■■tU-
'n^f
*Co'lli»<e* and uniT«rsiti«ii mu»t b<? the JudftOB ftf QualiflotttioBa
of ««(lieRl •ittdvatii. A m«iii<saX sohool nust h« tli« Jtt4|^ of ih«
qu*llfleatloaa of its stud^nte t» b^ grant«d th* a«gre« ef
deotor of sKftdislno.* Th'^ mnm^. tMoft Is tru# »« to th« qu«llfi*
eat ion of etudonto in » glv«a eobool to b« granted ci^rtuin
or^aits, yoT th^ aourto to diroot hy writ of nftnd«MQu« thnt a
aadioal B":hool shall giT« ttit>i«r atairinia epooified er^dits or
a dipl«iia to « potitionin^ student who has failed to moot tho
roquirod grados i» a«rtai« of bis oubj^ots, aeoording to tho
Judenont of th<3 sehool, would \->m pre^ostorouo. Sueh io the
situatioa as dieolosod on %,hM fa9« of this p«titi<.a.
The duworrore wero properly ouotalaed and th^refora
tho Jttdgaioat of tho Suporior Court i« affiraod*
tATCLOR, P.J. ASi) 0*-3€lf 'CK, J. CQSOUE,
489 • 207S^
TBK PRCQKPR Of, THf? STAT« ©F liJ-IHOIS,
CKARDS8 mCtt
Appcll •«! )
07 CHICAGO.
Aps^Ilant. }
219 I.A. 641
MR. JU&TICK THGHSOK dsliTtred the opinion of the
oourt.
B,> thle a9t>ec(l , the def enclant eeelcB to r«T«'r8e the
Judgment of the MuBioip*! Oourt Of Chioago, by which he «r«
foun(i to he the father of the be.Btatrd cMlO of the relatrlx*
Jean«ti« Frits, following the verdiet of a Jury, hj^a «a« ad*
Judged to pay th<? olerk of eaiu oourt #S50 in inetalraento,
for the support, Baintenenoe and oduoation of said ehild. Ho
contends the Terdiot ia again»t the manifest weight of the
erid^nee »nd aleo that the Municipal O^urt #&.» without Jurie*
dietion.
Wa liawe oarafully examined the eiricienoe ao we find
it in the reoord. It is, of oourte* eontradietory. The
■iatar of the relatrlx and a polioeaan of Blue Island, llli«
aols, where the parties resided at the tine of the relations
InrolTed, testified for the d<?fendant. The testiaony of the lat'
ter witness was entirely uainportajat. It is apparent that
the relatrix and her sister were not on good terns. Her
testimony alght be wholly true, hewoTor, cind yet the defend*
LJ^J■
ant be guilty, as the jury found.
W« do not find the etory of the proaeoutrix **••
out of aooord with all reaaenable probability that It stanqpa
itaelf an beyond belief," &» counsel for the defendant oon*
tends. 4uite the contrary* Certain faotn, admitted or
nentioned in the teetlaony of the defendant and of the
•ioter of the relatrix, tend to oorroberat* her. It «ro<ild
m9rr* oo purpooe to analyse the eri dense. That it eupporta
the rerdiot Ik dlear. If the jury believed tha relatrix
and did not belieTO the defendant* ae well they night, the
▼erdiot is the only on*? that oouli hare been returned.
The question of the J|uri»diation of the >iuniolpal
Ooiirt ie one which the defendant ia not in a position to
raise now. It ie the Juriadiotion of hie person that he
ealle in question, eontendlng that he waa not found within
the City of Chicago but was arreatsd at Blue Island and
later brought to Oiieago. But the defendant wei^t to trial
on the morita wit^»out raiaing any qur^ation aa to the court* a
Juriediotien «nd did not do so until aone time after the
trial was OTer. Froeeeding to trial on the merita waives
objection to juriadietion of the parson. Adamaki v. wiecaorek .
9S 111. App. 357.
We find no error in the record and th rcfore the judj-
aient of the Munieipal Court is affiraed*
A*'yiHMKI>.
TAYLOR, P.J. Aim 0»aO]SJ;OH, J, CONflUR.
'.»•
/\
458 - 25719.
LOOM I. MULLIIIS, i4ceiTer of
5!lSrGIEW00D SASH 3o 1)00^ COMPkM ,
a corporation,
ipellee,
▼s.
1
T HE LE HI GH 7 AU.^ry C Oil |COMP Atf? ,
a corporation, I
App|llant
APP^ WRCM CIRCUIT COUET
/ OP COOK COUHTY.
./ 2191.^.642
MR. PRESaj^G JUSTICE aOHKM
IfELITERBD THE OPINION OP 2HS COURT.
On this day the appellee oomes into ooort by his
solicitor, and appellant comes likewise hy its solicitors,
and file herein their stipulation that the sqppellee con-
fesses the errors assigned upon the record, both parties
consenting that for such errors the decree of the Circuit
Court be reverstd and the cause remanded to that oourt with
directions to the Circuit Court to dismiss the bill of com-
plaint without cost to either paarty and that each party pay
his own costs in this court.
V
KRR0R3 COUPES 3ED, IF.CRKS REVERSED ASP
CAUSE RE.MAirDRD WIIH DIRECTX OBS TO THK
CIRCUIT COURT TO DISMISS THE BILL FOR
WAiJT OP EQUITY WITHOUT COST TO EITHER
PARTY.
37 - 25796 \
\
\
CEOROX HOLY, \ )
Plaint if A in T^Tror, )
\
A. C. MCCLURO & COMPAIIY,
a ocrporation* \
Defendant in'^rer.
\
CR TO CIRCUIT COURT OF
COCK COUNTY,
219I.A. 642
HR. i'RESIiJiJJG JU3TIC1 HOLDOM
D&LinSRm THK OHKIGfi OS THE COURT.
In tiils action for »allcioU8 prosecution a Yerdiot
was directed for defendant and a Judgaent of nil capiat entered
thereon, from which plaintiff prosecutes tnis appeal in an at*
terapt to reverse the Judi^ent.
The principal contentions for reversal are that the
record of the criffiinal proceedings upon which the action of this
prosecution is founded is adsoissihle only for the purpose of
ahOT/inir the commeno«)ent and ternilnfttion of the criminal proceed-
ings and for no other purpose; that the question of probable
cause was one of fact for the Jury; nnd in arguendo that a
verdict for defendant could not be inatructed; l»otly, that the
verdict finding defendant guilty of a criminal action is not con-
cluaive on the question of probable cause.
The facts In brief are that jieptember 28» 1914, a
burglary occurred in the wholesale store of defendant in Chicago,
in whlcn two safes were blown open and a number of fountain pens,
briar pipes, operm glasses, and other tilings were taken by the
burglars. The watctiman of defendant was bound by the two marauders
whc committed the burglary, and from a description furniehed by
this watchman to certain detectives some of the goods were traced
to the otar Hub Loan itank, a pawnshop in Chicago. These goods
were identified by one Scott, an employee of defendant, as being
the goods of defendant. The pawnbroker upon being questioned as to
^fhere he obtained the goods named plaintiff. Detectives visited
the store of plaintiff and there found other goods belonging to
defendant. Jtlaintlff being asked «vhere he got the goods said that
his father had purohased them for him, but at the trial testified
that he had said t^iat he bought the goods at auction sales. The
father denied that he had purchased the goods for plaintiff, but
said that plaintiff had at some previous time brought theo) in a
trunk to his residence, plaintiff subsequently admitted that his
stateoient that his father bought the goods was not correct, but
that he had in fAot bought Uie goods from a man named Cippera at
1644 TliToop street two weeks previous. Thereupon the poliee ser-
geant went to the Throop street address and learned that cippera
had left for Burope three yr^rs before and that the store was a
grocery store. October li;, 1914, 3oott consulted a member of de-
fendant's law firm and stated to his all the material facts re-
garding the property found in plaintiff *s possession after the
burglary and also infoTOied the la vyer that the detective sergeant
had requested hia to sign a complaint, and wished to know what h«
should do about it. ^oott was advised by tue lawyer that he had
probable cause for arresting plaintiff and thereupon went to the
Sast Chicago avenue police station with acott, ?rhere they had a
conversation concerning the burglary with detectives and with an
assistant state's attorney «nd two police sergeants, Bcott re-
peated the facts of the case to the assistant state's attorney
and the saae were related to a Judge of the tmnicipal court, and
thereupon Scott signed the complaint under which plaintiff was ar-
rested and held to bail in the su« of |1,000. October 23, 1914,
defendant waived the hearing and the case was continued until.
Bovsmber 13, 1914. on which date plRlntiff was held to the criminal
court of cook county in bail of #2500, The grand jury returned an
9di
t:«£t roNUBX aixi
id smAi
acts
!:?«» »»v ■Uft«'x<e»Taoo
;n« ,4-%aoo ia^,:
Indiotment against plaintiff to the <«o«mber tevta, 1914, upoa
which indictment he was arraigned and pleaded net guilty. On
February 10, 1914, upon a trial plaintiff was by the jury found
guilty of receiving stolen goods, etc. A motion for a new trial
was continued from ttoe to time until October 8, 1917, when the
notion was granted and a new trial ordered, and on December 13,
1917, on motion of the staters attorney the indictment was dis-
missed.
(We might here paranthetical ly remark that the fact
that the motion for a new trial was delayed for three years and
eight months is eomeachat bafflini^ and not to be aoocunted for
under ordinary rules of procedure.)
m the fi3rst place, uoott swore tiiat he did not act
for or at the request or «rith the knowledge of defendant in
swearing out the warrant for plaintiff's arrest. This eTidenos
is not contradicted, and it is therefore conclusiYe against
plaintiff that the prosecution was not instituted by or with the
authority of defendant, but that scott alone was the prosecutor.
The evidence demonstrates amply that the prosecution
was founded upon probable cause, uriioevsr may have instituted it.
We think there are eif^ht instAnces aho'tring the existence of
probable cause, «b follows;
1, The advice of competent oounsel based on a dis-
closure of all the pertinent known facts.
2. The endorsement of the Municipal court Judge on
the back of tlie complaint finding provable cause for filing it.
3. Order of the kunioipal court judge of October
13« 1914. tliat there was probable cause and holding plaintiff to
bail.
4, order of the i^unicipal court Judge October 23,
1914, reciting that there was probable cause.
tn»»i9lhat
4IM
5, order of rjovember 11th of tii« junicipal coxu*t
hcldiB« plaintiff tc the grand jury.
6, lndi«ti^«nt of plaintiff toy the grand jury at
the Deoenber term 1914, based on the teetimony of six witnesaea.
7, overruling of motion of plaintiff to inetruot the
Jury to return a verdict of not guilty on the trial in the
Criminal court.
8, The verdict of the jury finding plaintiff guilty,
Koae of the foregoing has been rebutted by any claia
or contention that any of the orders or actions there recited was
brought about by fraud, perjury cr unfairness. In uahlber j^ v.
Grace , 178 111, App. 97, it was held that a conviction in criainal
cases is conclusive proof of probable cause for instituting the
prosecution unless such conviction is proven to have been brought
about by false or fraudulent testimony or other unlawful means,
and that the record of such conviction ia adaiiseible in evidence
on the question o£^ probable cause, notwithatanding the fact that
the conviction may have been set aside by a court of review, or,
as in the instant case, a new trial granted followed by a subse-
quent di iccntinunnoe of the prosecution.
The record in a criminal proceeding on which an ac-
tion for malicious prosecution is founded is admiasible for the
purpose of showing the existence of probable cause. While the
question of probable cause has been held by this court to be one
of fact for the Jury»s determination, yet when the evidence in
disputably shows the existence of probable cause such question of
fact is resolved into one of law and, ns in otixer cases ■^hexe a
like condition in the evidence prevails, it is the duty of the
trial judge to grant a motion instructing a verdict for the de-
fendant, in Tuebbecke v, Kothschild' s, 152 111. App. 321, in
reversing a Judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, the
court held that it waa inconceivable why the trial Judge should,
under the circucsetancea recited, have refrained from directing a
verdict. Youn^ v. lindatroro , 115 ihid 239, in whiou the court
said: "While it is for the jury to determine the facta in any
given caae, what const itutea probable cause is a queation of law.*
^^ 9}- ^P .T? ^* lawrence , 280 III. 661, being an action for malicioua
prosecution, »n instructed verdict for defendant waa sustained
as being without error.
It would have been proper for the court to have al-
lowed the motion to instruct a verdict for defendant when plain*
tiff rested his case, as he had given in evidence the complaint
of ^00 tt with an order for prooeaa by a itiu^ieipal court judge
thereon and the in lie tin en t of defendant by the grand jury for
the crime charged in the coctplaint to have been coouaitted; »aioh
were cogent evidences of probable cause, "iWiere probable cause la
proven the querftion of malice is eliminated as a factor in the
cause.
As there la no reversible error in tiila record, the
judgment of the Circuit court is affirmed,
Bever and t Courely, JJ,, concur.
\
105 - 26e76\
' \
"T * ) /
Appellant, L /
^APPEAL PROM MimiCIPAL
"V8
) COURT OP CHICAGO.
IIiTIOUAI 5T0W COlteAHY. a
corporation, \ /" ) ^ ^ r\ T li ^
'■■'^
MR. PRKSIBIIG JUSTICE HDLDOM
IJEHTERED THE OPIHIOH OP THE COURT.
In a jury trial defendant had a verdiot and judgment
on ItB counter-olaim for 1649.66, and plaintiff appeals.
She dispute between the parties relates to an item of
#1062.98 claimed by defendant. The judgment ie the difference
between that item sind the amount of plaintiff 'e el aim. Plain-
tiff contends th^t the ^ole matter rests in an account stated
between the parties, in i?^oh the amount of plaintiff's claim
was stated in plaintiff's etatement rendered defendant as the
aaount due plaintiff, that such statement retained by defendant
without objeotion worked an accord and satisfaction, and that
the court ooramitted error in allowing a witness to refresh his
recollection from a memorandum which had not been prepared by him.
The letter objeotion we think is without merit, as the
witness did not testify from the memorandum shown him, which
meraoraadum simply served the purpose of refreshing the witness's
recollection regarding the matter about which he testified. Such
method of refreshing a witness's recollection is recognized as
lawfBl. 320V111 Kis^ Co. y. Cassia y. 876 111. 462; Brau.r T.
imm&. 211 111. App. 634. lae rule is stated 1^ the 0«al4,
••rtrcTvT
.'0 l>ori:;>-«' .
case to be that "A witness can testify only to suoh facts as
are within hie knowledge and recollection, hut he is permitted
to refresh and aeeist hie memory hy the use of a written inatru-
raent, memoraQdum or entry in a book, and it is not necessary
that the writing should haye been made by the witness himself
or that it should have been an original writing, provided that
after inspecting the record he can speak to the facte from his
own recollection. Neither is it necessary that the writing thus
used should itself be admissible in evidence. •• The objection
made on this point therefore fails*
Plaintiff and defendant were both dealers in stone.
The account of plaintiff in suit was for stone sold by pledLntiff
to defendant with credit items for cash and freight and for
certain other allowances. Defendant's claim of set-off is for
stone sold by i\ to plaintiff and delivered more or less to third
parties on the order of plaintiff, less credit for cash, freight,
cash allov/ancee and credit accounts for stone bought by plaintiff
of defendant.
We think the jury might reasonably find from the evi-
dence that the statements rendered by plaintiff to defendant did
not cover or pretend to cover or contain the items of Btone
bought by it from defendant or for stone shipped by defendant
to third parties on plaintiff's order. Furthermore, they might
further find firom the evidence that plaintiff's books did not
contain credits t9r all the stone purchased from defendant and
that the statements rendered did not contemplate such trans-
actions in their entirety, nor that plaintiff intended, in the
rendering of said statements, to have them work an accord and
.is
~,ntft'S-
bmtit
s:*ii^^
■?;:f?c r^l^st^:i-n
rc TCT':
•r--7 fj-r!
3.
eatiefaotlon betweea itself and the defendant.
The fact that . defendant did not demur to or ohallenge
the oorreotnees of suoh stateraents the Jury might readily con-
clude arose from the taot that so far as the items themselves
were concerned they were in the main correct. This, however,
would not preclude defendant from rendering a statement to
plaintiff and colleoting for stone i?^lch it had furnished plain-
tiff or delivered to third prirties upon its order. These accounts
hetween the parties covered quite a long period of time. Defen-
dant's account started April ZO, 1914, with its last credit item
May 29, 1916, and its last dehit item the last of November, 1916,
while plaintiff's account coimnenoed August 30, 1915, and com-
cluded February 18, 1916.
An examination of the instructions touching the doctria*
of aooord and satisfaction discloses no material ejrror from which
we can say that the jury was misled as to the application of the
doctrine of acoord and satisfaction to the facts in evidence.
An accord and satisfaction contemplates a bona fide dispute be-
tween the parties. Ob ermeyer v. Farms Co . , 199 111. App. 568.
Ho Buoh dispute appears ttom the evidence in this record.
Furthermore, there must have been a tender to constitute an
acoord and satisfaction and an acceptance with the understanding
that the amount accepted is in full payment of all accounts
between the parties*
All the evidence considered and the law applicable
thereto, the verdict and judgnent seems to do justice between
the parties. Ho such error appears in procedure as would
warrant this court in reversing the judgment and ordering a
tiitftTi-'
4.
new trial where the merits of the case are so manifestly
on the side of defendant.
The judgment of the Municipal Co art is affirmed.
AWimSED,
Dever and McSurely, JJ. , concixr.
.^
114 - 25885.
\
HEBRT H. BISHOP. \
Plaiatiyf in Frror, y
TB.
AETHA LIFE IHSURAHCte CO,,/ )
KRROH TO CIHCUIT COURT
OF COOK COUUTY.
219
j^ ot%.e -^^
MR. PEBSIDIIG JUSTICE HOLDOM
DELIVERED THE OPIUION OF 1833 COUIiT.
The judgment in the record le of nil capiat and for
oost«, and plaintiff assigns as error for reversal the
raling of the trial court in sustaining the demurrer of
defendant to the replication of plaintiff to defendant *s
third plea. There were la the trial court two oases which
were consolidated for hearing, and the abstract shows the
pleadings in^but one of them.
There does not seem to be any contention but what
the limitation plea was good unless it was avoided by the
arerraents of the replication, which is in confession as to
the truth of the plea, but there is an attempted avoidance
of its effect by a statement of facts which, it is contended,
avoids the effect of such limitation.
This case falls within the logic and reasoning of
PhoeniiK Ins . Co . v. Lebcher . 20 111. App. 450, in which the
court said:
"The clause in the policy sued on which limited the
time for bringing suit thereon to within twelve months
nezt after the flats of the fire from which the loss
occurs, is B valid ancl binding agreement between the
parties, and furnishes a legitimate defense to the
company where oait is not brou^t within the time limited,
unless it appears thtit the company has waived the limi-
tation or has estopped itself £rom asserting such
t.
defense lay holding oat reasonable hopes of an adjust-
ment and settlenent wlthox^t suit, sufficient to
actually deteif the claimant from bringing suit until
after the expiration of the time limited. Peoria
Marine Ins. Co. v. Whitehall, 25 111. 466.
The mere pendency of negotiations daring a part
of the period of limitation, conducted in good faith,
with a view to a comprcwiise, is no waiver of the
limitation and will not estop the company from setting
up the defense. Gooden v. Amoskeag Fire Ins. Co.,
'do 'S, H. 73; May on Insurance, sections 486-488, and
oases olt4A."
However, in the Instant esse nothing in the plea
set up deterred plaintiff from commencing suit within the
limitation period, for the suit was comraenoed in apt time.
Ihe difficulty arose in the filing of a new declaration and
abandoning the original one after the expiration of the
limitation, which new declaration stated a new cause of
action.
It is said that as to the suit in which there is no
abstract the limitation clause of the policy had not run.
In the state of the record, there being no abstract of the
pleadings in tliat oase, we are unable to say whether or no
such contention is well taken. As said by this and the
Supreme court in numerous cases, the abstract is the plead-
ing of the parties and sufficient must appear therein to
support the errors assigned, and a court of review will not
look te the record for reasons to reverse a judgment where
no such reasons appear from the abstract.
Finding no error calling for a reversal of the judg-
ment of the Circuit court, it is affirmed.
AFPHOEa).
Dever emd MoSurely, J J. , concur.
•.:;i. t>i..
181 • 259S3
\ Appellant,
vnm> K. Bis|.Tim.
\ Appell*«.
FRFT3 E. BKI,T39|,
'^ppellee.
mUA BKLTEB.
App^ant^y
Ai:pAI FROM 3tJPmiOR COUHT
Oy COOK COUNTY.
CROSS -BllJL.
219I.A. 642
KB. mESI?3lKG JUSTICE HOLDOM
DET.IVaKBD THl OitlKIOK OF THE COUHT.
The parti f 8 to the bill and cross-bill in this caea
are husband and wife. Complainant » the wife, filed her bill for
separate maintenance grounded upon the desertion of defendant and
that she was liTing separate and apart fr ca» her husband without
her fault. Defendant answered thia bill and filed his cross-bill
•>skinK for divorce on the grounds that hla wife had been guilty
of improper relations with other men, naming one of them, and that
she frequtnted public dances* cabarets, public restaurants, and
other places of a notorious cirmr^cter with the aforesaid named
man and also with other men. Other chargei of improper conduct
were made and desertion by the wife charged, Kany c/iarges liie-
vlse were mnde against nis mother-in-law, <ihom he accused of
wrangling, nagging, abusing and finding fault with him.
The defendant in both the bill and cross-bill filed *»
answer denying the material charges made each against the other.
There was a decree on the cross-bill divorcing the parties for
complainant's desertion, and a disiilssal of the original bill
7W 9t9itt
for aepamte maintenano*. tttm which decrees the wife proae-
out«8 this appea.1.
Notwithstanding the serious chf*rge8 of infidelity
Baade by the huaband against his wife, no atteaipt wis laade to
prove any on' of such charges, but tiie husband reliefl upon th«
wife's alleged desertion for the atatutory period as grounds
for relief under hio orosB-bill . The learned chancellor found
thP. t the desertion wms that by the wife of the husband, not
conversely, as the wife ccntended. This we think vms manifestly
contrarv to the great preponderance of the proofs.
It appears that at the tiae of the alleged deser-
tion the parties lived ^vlth the wife's mother; that the husband
CPEne hoB>e on the night of August 15, 191^, packed his clothes
into his grip, taking the wedding ring from his 'vife, and on
going out said to his wife's mother, *#ftll, mother, I will see
you later on.* After this tiAe the husband made no effort to see
his wife and did not contribute to her support until an order for
temporary alixnony was made against hia. He made no attempt to
provide a hoiae for hin wife other than his mother-in-law's.
It appears that the wife's mother was inclined to be a little ir-
ritwble when not well, as the wife admitted in her testimony; but
It is not contradicted that on the whole the iaother-in-law was a
source cf great help and assistance to her daughter and her daughter's
husband; that when first married the husband was in rather bad
financial circumstances and that the mother-in-law fvirnished
shelter for him and hia wife, charging hira but three, four and
five dollars a week for the board and lodging of himself and wife.
There is no prref worthy of belief thot the wife's
mother was guilty of any reprehensible conduct toward the defendant,
the cross complainant, yurthermore, complainant made several bona
fid <> effort* to induo* h«r husband to reauaif the marital relation.
She offered several tinea to live with nim and requeated him to
return to her. There vera seTaral prooeedinga in the court of Do*
aeatic Helationa in which ocmplainant sought to haye her huaband
return to her, hut without success, E« flatly refused on these
occasions to resune the marital relntion, and aside from hi9 claiia
of desertion there is no evidence in the record of any misconduct
or unwifely actions on the part of complainant. There were thraa
ttniispeaohed witnesses, including the late lir. Charles Arnd, a
reputable lawyer of the Chicago bar at the time, to the effect
that oonplainant rsquested hex husband to return to her and of*
fered to live with hiai as his wife, anU that he absolutely refused,
sayinf;, "It is too late; it i& too lat«i; i cannot live with her any
ttore,"eto.
A correct solution of the questions of fact in this
record clearly sustains the Rveru.ent of coesplainant's bill of her
husband's desertion without any cpuae created by her, and ahe is
therefore entitled to prevail and to nave a decree entered in her
favor for a separate maintenfunce as prayed in her bill.
The decrees dismissing the bill of coaiplaint for want
of equity and granting a decree of divorce to the husband on his
cross-bill nre wrong. These decrees are therefore reversed and
the cause is remanded with directions to the Superior court to en-
ter a decrae granting eomplainafit separate maintenance from her
husband, as prayed for in her bill, diasjlssing the cross-bill of the
husband for vmnt of equity. Hnd including in the decree such allow-
ances for alimony and solicitors' fees as the necesaities of the wifo
■ay require and in accord with the ability of the husband to furnish,
REVSRSKI) AHD REMAFDED WITH DIEKCTX0N3.
Dever and Sf'cSurely, JJ,, concur ,
w'.
\
£64 - ;&60&6.
\
\ /t
I. P. BEAT, \ ) /
Appellaat, ) /
\ ) pmhL mm wmicivki cows
S y Of CHItAfiO.
aBOROK A. SKA?F,HIS, JV*. i
^^u..h 219I.A. 64 3
I5B1ITSKF3 tm OFIHIOaS OF fBK COORf .
7hl« l8 tuei Jbppeal by plftlatlff from a judgiwat of
nil capiat ©ntareA on n finding of the trial jsdg«, to idiom
the oaaii»« was 6ub«lttoA for trial by figrooment of tha partita*
Tha parties to thla action wera inear»Qoa broker a
In tha offioa of Marsh ^ MaLamiaQ, Inaoranoe ngonta In
Chloaga.
It Is the oontentlan of plaintiff tlvit In December,
1916, he proourat for Aefendaitt the btialneea of Inaarlng
the antomobllee of the paaklng honae of Armour & Company
aeattereA all over the United States at points where they ';on-
daoted their bnalnass. Pefendaat at this time wrote most of
the Inaoranee for the ArtBoar Company but did not write any
aatoraoblle Insuranoe for thoa; that as o:»ipensatlon for this
service plaintiff clalns defenaant agreed to divide co'^mlsslons
paid for anch atttemeblle iniiuraaoe.
While defendant repndiated any le^sal liability to pay
plaintiff aaythinf, on aoeoant of the Armour Antomobile Imaor-
anoe, and not^ithatandine defendant olp.lf&s that plaintiff
diaelalmed any right to any retnunerati on on oocouat of fnxf
serrloe he way hare rendered la the matter, still defendant
t.
9raails«d him mfn mi 4m«-ha3.f per owit of the origlmil
prMdnas paiA, to h^ p«iA to hin In qoftrtorly iQetaliBints.
iamn^ othor faeta It Appftsru that on ]>ao«n1»«r 8,
3.917, plaintiff atar««4 a avlt la the Mmlolpal Court of
Chie«m« agaiast AefeadnBt, oXalnlag |92S.lfi to tse duo him
oa Ajmovr aatonoblle laaaraaeo. ^lion AeflBMaat wis aerrod
with stnttona la this suit ho sotDtei^t plaintiff, arrttgei to
and did pay him #800 on aoooont, proml8ia« to pay the halanos
on or before January li, 1919, nhieli, being aeoeptable to
plaintiff, he promised to dlsadsB the salt. This promise
he failed to perform* Instead, h« took juAfmeal; a^paiaet
defoadaat on default day. After reeelTlag payment of the
judgment in full plaintiff started g«nishse prooeedlags
against Marsh ii MelaBnan. fie eansed an eaeeoatien on the
Munioipal Court judpnent to be returned defsadant not firand,
eto«, at a time irhea he knew defendnat ims daily In the awae
of flee (ilarsh ^ MoLenaaa) as himself. When the faeta were
made Jcaonn to the Muaioipal Court in an impropriate motion
it ordered the judgment aatisfled*
While many points are diuoussed on the errors asaigned,
IPS shall oonfine our deoislon as to the meight of the erl denes
and the lav regarding the applloatlon of the statute of Frauds
to the oontraet between the parties olalmed by plaintiff.
& oourt of reriew will be reluotant to dlaturb ths
findings of fast of a trial judge and will not do so unless
the reoord elearly shows that sueh fiadlzig la manifestly agalamt
the weight of the erldenoe. aprlaKor t. Parid Brsdley Mj^. £o.,
191 HI, App. 46; Calyert y. Carpenter . 96 111. 63.
It is patent that plftlatlff wast dlaor»dit»a by •om*
•ztr«nely ^Isrlng ofiethioal ooaAuot on hi* p«rt.
Plaintiff •» «otion» regm-dlne th« Mtmielpal Court
aalt Agdlast defonaant a» h«r<»inaboTe rooltod wire nost
dleorodl table to Jiim and affeot adreraely hie eredlblltty.
Moreover, In mmy vltsa ii«tter« about whloh he teetlfled be
wa« ooatradloted by the testimony of oredible wltneseee vhoee
teetlmony was tmlapeaohed*
If the eimtraot olalmird b; plaiatiff was Talnerable
agalaat legal attack it waa not etietalaed by ft prepwideraaae
of the eridenee*
the ooatentlon of defei»3ant that he only promised to
pigr plaiatiff fievea imd one-half per oeat of the original
prenlttiaa ea Axwdur aatonobile laaaraaae waa aastalaed by a
clear prepondtrtiBee of the eTldenoe, mH the ooatentlon that
Aefeadaat agroe4 to divide equally hie eenraieaione on all
iaBaraaae prealiUBa thereafter paid on Artnonr aatonoblle Inaor-
aace ««a eaeoeeaftilly refuted by a preponderaaee of the eTldenee.
It ^ppeare that the ooatraot laetween plaintiff and
defend nnt rf^garding the oo»aiealoas wae to extend from year
to year so lon^; as defendaat did the Ax*moar anderwrltlng oa
ita aatomobilea* Sash a ooatraot la elearly wlt^ia the 3tatate
of SVaada of this state, whloh proTldes that a ooatraot not to
be perforaed wlthia oae year firem its Baklag is void anless
aaoh ooatraot shall be la trritlag alined by the party to be
oharged. Chi^. S9 K. ».; farlor ▼. Soott . 17Q HI. App. 487,
Seeing no reason in thie record for dlf»tarbiag the
jnd^eat of the Maniolpal Court, it is affizned.
AP7XHICB9.
XNrrsr sad MaSarely, JJ., eoaetor.
\
V /
S80 - 26092. \
WIILIAM D. BIBl, \ ^
Appellee,
ve.
IILLXAH ALLER,
Appellanti /
Ai>PEAL FROM MUHICIPAI
COURT OF CHICAGO.
I/I .^;j^9l.A. 643
MR. PRESIDING JUS3!ICE HOLDOM
DELIVERED THF. OP HI I ON OP THF; COIEI.
This is a "forcible detainer" suit in whioh both
parties oleim a right to the poseeseion of the premises
in (luestion under the fee owner, Mayo Friedherg.
The plaintiff claims under a written lease from
the owner for a term commencing October 1, 1919, and end-
ing September 30, 1920. This lease was offered and received
in eTidence. At this time defendant was in possession under
a written lease expiring September 30, 1919, as she admit*.
A sixty day statutory notice that the term then ended was
duly served upon defendant in apt time. However, she con-
tended in the trial court, and so contends here, that she
had an oral agreement with the rent collecting agent of the
owner that she might continue in possession until May 1, 1920.
This agreement was denied by the rent oolleoting agent. In
the trial court there was a finding and judgqient for plaintiff,
and defendant appeals.
There was no denial at the trial that defendant was
In possession of the preraisee in question. She took the wit-
ness stand and swore that by an agreement with Lowenstein she
was entitled to continue in possession until May 1, 1920.
Moreover, if her story be true that Lowenetein granted her
an extension of the time of ocoupanoy if she paid ten dollars,
than, as she admits she did not pay the ten dollars, she has
not sufficiently complied with the terms of the agreement she
states as to make it operative.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Lowenstein was
anything more than the agent of the owner to collect rents or
that he had any aathority to make any agreement to extend the
tenn of the existant lease. Agency cannot be presumed; when
Invoked It must be proven, the same as any other fact, in order
to make it available for any purpose.
The lease to defendant from the owner vma properly
admitted in evidence as tending to prove the right of plaintiff
to possession. The right to possession was the sole question
to be determined by the court, and as defendant failed to prove
any right to continue to hold possession as against plaintiff's
right to such possession, in virtue of the lease in evidence
frOTi the owner, he was entitled to prevail in the action.
The Judgment of the Municipal Court la affirmed.
AFFHaCED.
Dever and Mc Surely, JJ,, concur.
&s^■^*^»•
M4 - £6116.
THK ?KO?LK OF
Il*LiK0l3, for
OAK ?\.W. 7BUST
BAIK, a oerporat
T8.
aiCKS, Tra«t«». JO
DRXCKS, ?rits%««. KD
SOOSAI BAd JOSEPH H
APPT^AL PKCfe< CISCUXI COURT
OF COOK COUHTt.
Appellant 8. )
\j
MB. Pi^aiDISQ JU3XZCE HDi^QH
EKLIYKKSD IHE OPiSXOJf OF Ii'iK COmi.
7hla i» an action upon an appoal bcmd la the penalty
of fftfOOC. with the Aeolaration was filed an affldarlt of
olalm, to iihleh defwidante interposed aoTeral pleaa with an
affldarlt of merltorlooa defeoue, whioh, on motlost was
etrlelcen ae not stating faeta irhloh oonetltnted in law a
defense to the aotlon. Snbeeciaently two aaended affidarlta
of meritorious defense were sneoesslvely filed by leave of
court whioh were on motion likewise stricken ns ;£tatine no
facte whioh oonetituted a atrltorious defense, thsrenpon,
on notion of plaintiffa, the pleas were eliminated for want
of a anfficient affldaTlt of merits and a jodipent as hy
defaolt was entered by the ooort in favor of plaintiff and
againat defendant for $ft,000 debt and damages #430£.64, debt
to be disohareed on paym«nt of daam^s and eests. from whioh
Jnds»ent defendants proeeeate this appeal and ask a roTersal.
FJrsm the fereeoing recitation it is seen that this
appeal presents for our determination whether the faots
»t&t»d in the last 9t said thret afflAATlts ooaetltutea In
law a m«ritorious d«f«iui« to the aotlon ooaated ujxm. la tlie
deolaratloa of plaintiff.
the errors asalf^ned are embraoed within the rulings
Of the ooiort etrlking the affidavitei of merits from the files
cuad alee In striking the pleas and In enteirlne Jud^-meat as in
oases of def^^t.
7he bond in salt is the oontraot of the parties, aaA
whether stfttotory or one given in aooord with the oourse of
the Qosmoa law. Is eaforolble.
The anendsd affldaTlt of sprits did not atnte any
faot& whloh eonutltated a aefeaae, either merltorioos or
legal, to the boi^ In salt, but on the contrary stated many
faota whloh we^*e In thiimselTes eoaply aoffloient to support
the aotlon and ^^ostlfy a Judgosat for plaintiff. It is in
aooord with approTed prastloe to atrike pleas from the oaoss
where there ie no affidavit of Hierlts on file, whew an
affldaTlt of floerlts is strloken beoaus« it laoks faots whloh
oonstltnte a meritorions defoise to the aotlon the pleas fall
as a defense and are properly strloken, when the oause Is
treated as one where no affiaarlt Is f Ued and the pleas are
likewise otrloken wlthoat regard to their enfflolenoy as
pleas stating a good defense. In saoh state of the reoord
It le the oorreot praotloe to enter Judgment as In oases of
default. Bed dig v. Looaey . £09 111. App. 418 j Crsaar ▼.
Comae re lal Aesoolatlon . 260 111. 616. In Tire ir. tone '-^Ire Cp* t.
BXB^MK* ^'^^ ibid 132, it la said:
"Where an affidavit of merits Is Insufflolent, It
is proper praotloe to strike it from the files and the
f.
plaintiff ie then «iatitl«a to JGagsient an in oa«e of
default. After nn sffirlaylt of rg«rlts Jiae b«oa
etrickoa fron the files it is not nooeasary to strike
the pleas from the files, although the pr notice is
not inqproper and is ooamon.**
It is serioaslj^ oonteaded by defenaants that the
^'iTin^ of the bond in suit was proeursd by dnrsss. Howey«>r«
there is no warrant in the re oar d for holding that the bond
was prooured by doress. in short, the olaia is nsade that a
former bond was giT«n whioh «a& regarded as insofficient and
a new bond was rsQaested and the one in sttlt giT«a. Bat,
forsooth, said bond, it is oentended, ivonld not ha to been given
bat for the threat made that the trial Jndge would not sifn
and seal the bill of exceptions in the oass onless a new bond
was given and that dsfendants yielded to saoh threat and gave
the bond in suit. In the first plaee, the trial judge e««ld
have been oompslled by mandamus to settle and sign a bill of
exceptions if he arbitrarily and unlawftolly refilled to do so
upon presentation, furtheraore, the reo it at ions of the bond
hare not been and oannot, under the law, be denied. 7hs Judg-
msnt appealed frora is oorrSetly reel ted in the bond, the
Supreme Court reviewed the jud^ went of the Cocmty Conrt afpealst
had
f^en and defendants hare/the benefit of the n^jpeal by obtain-
ing the review of the Jadg!i!ient agiainat thsm by the Suprstoe Court,
to which tribunal tlMi appeal was prayed.
There is nothing la the bond that; oontravenes publlo
polioy. It was voluntarily {riven at the tine and defendants
have enjoyed all the benefits of delay in the exeoution of the
jud^iment appenled f^on and the review of the Supreme Court
thereof, l-ritohett v. rhe Xeople . 6 111. 616. These were
4.
all tlM benefits defvodants 8ou|rht. thea* beoefita w«r«
obtained In Tlrtoe of tha bond. Taeiy oannot noTr b« ti«ard
to repadiat© their oontraot in the verity of which they
receired the benefit of the privilege of a review of the
niai Prlaa inAgrnrnt, Mj^c v. The People . B6 111. 3£9. Aa
the 00 art aMd in Xotlte v. The Title Qattrantce ^ 3arety Co..
191 111. Apx^. 56£, 130 a&y we here:
'*The Jad^eBt debtor iwed the bond here aued
on to procure a review by thla court of Ihe judgment
agflkinet him, and the aurety by Joining in the bond
enabled him to do ao, and having obtained all the
benefit of the bona they ahomld be eatopped from
denying that it la a binding obi Ig at ion.**
There la no aerlt in any of defendiutita' oontentlona,
and the reoord of the Ciroult Court being free from revere ibla
9Tr0Tt ita Jadgnent la afflrT«>d.
AffZiiiiP*
Dover and Me Surely, J J. , concur.
64 - 25854
\
\
MAHIOK E. DAVBNiOR^.
ilain^iff in Krror,
Vd.
A
JOE.S LOUIS DAVi&!^PORT.\
Bef endan^ in I'/or.
OF COOK COimTY.
219 I.A, 643
hn, JUSTICE DEVTm 0]«;LIVEREB THE Oi IKIOJf OF THE COURT.
Karion };, Davenport filed her bill of oompjaint
in tLe Superior court of "oolc ;;ounty June ]2, 191c:, in which
Bhe ch&rgfid her nusbpnd, John I.ouis ,r;avenport, with desertion,
July i3, 1916, John Louis I'avenport filed his answer thereto,
in which he denied that he wEiS or had been guilty of desertion
and charged complainant- with adultery. Thereafter defendant
filed a croBB-bill feud later a ouppleffiental cross-bill, in
which he all^iged tixa i he i & a resident o.i Cot:k County and has
been a, resident of the atste of illincis i'cr thirty years last
past. GoxB lainant filed an answer to this EUpplemental cross-
bill, in which ehe admitted oro so-complainant "is an actual
resident of Cook County and ia and has been a resident of the
State of Illinois for thirty years last past.
The issues made up by the pleadings were submitted
on evidence to a jury, which returned a verdict finding the com-
plainant not guilty of adultery and that, compTainant was living
separate and ppart froc: defendant pnd oroas-complainant ./ithout
fault on her part. The Jury also returned a verdict which
found the complainant, larion E, Davenport, guilty of an attempt
to kill cross-complainant, as charged in his cross-bill. A de-
cree was entered in the cause avmrding defendant and oross-
complainnnt a decree of divorce. The decree recites inter alia :
>C;iiCi» -
Isi^j
ss«~
iami
itAiaie.t
^Aoi
"The court finds that it hps jurisdiction of the
parties hereto ond the subject-matter hereof, and that said
verdict ia well founded and ia resionsive to the is;.;uee and
supported by the proofs offered in open court upon the trial
of said cAuue, and thHt thf, ot-id i arion j.)avenport did, on tc-
wit. Kovember 23, 1918, make a willful atte pt to take the
life of the dei enciant and ore ss-ccciplainant, joim Louis
Davenport, subsequent to her unarriage witii him, by means
uhcwing njalice, tu-j.'it, by means of e. loaded pistol v/hich
she fired at him, as is alleged in the suprlei/iental cross-
bill heretofore filed by the orosa-oouiplainant in the above
entitled cause,"
complainant and cross-defendant seeks by iT^rit of
error to reverse this decree for the reasons, as asserted, first,
tnat the record does not disclose that cross-complainant was a
resident of the 3tate of Illinois for one whole year next be-
fore filinf^ his oross-bill of complaint; and, second, that the
verdict of ttie jury ^?as insufficient in tl^iat it failed tc recite
that the coinplalnant had atteiapted to take the life of cross-
complainant by means showing malice.
The suppl. <933ental crrss-bill alleges that the cross-
complainant •♦had been a reslaent of the state of Illinois for 30
years last past," and the answer filed thereto by the complain-
ant adsnlts tnat cross-coraplainant has been a resident of the
btate of Illinois for "30 years last past,** The decree entered
in the cause sp cifically recites that the court had jurisdiction
of the parties and of the subject matter.
The evidence submitted tc the ,iv.ry is not preserved
by either party to the litigation. The issues wre, however,
tried before a jury, and such being the fact it was not incumbent
upon the party in whose favor the decree was entered to preserve
the evidence admitted on the trial.
In the case of Lyons v. I^ons , 272 111. 329, the
Supreme court said:
"It is insisted tYmt it does not appear from any
recital in the decree that appellant has resided in the ytate
of Illinois more than one year before filing her bill; that
■•n
■tai; i as
:':i4S^ Jtm-
this was necessary to pive the court jurisdiction, and. that
the recital in the decree that the court had jurisdiction of
the euhjGCt natter rnd of the pertios is wholly insufficient.
Upon that question relience is principtlly plpced upon
BeckT rnher^' v. P r-ckT enb erg > 232 111. 120, That case held
That such recitals of juriEdicticn were not sufficient to
sustain a decree v7here thn evidence is not preserved in the
record. In that case, however, there was no admisaicn in
the anawer that ccnplainant had been a resident of 111 inoie
jHore then a yctxr ccntinucusly before filing the bi'il. The
bill alleged complain.^r.t was a resident of Cook fiounty and
had been sjn actual resident of the State of Illinois con-
tinuously more than one year preceding the filing of the bill.
The answer -"idmittrd cr.r;'r1 Rln«nt had been a resident of the
State of Illinois »for more than one year last past.' The
court saij t.'..e acswir ^f'9s not -ri prT^inelcn thn,t ecinplr'inaiit
had been a resident of Il''inois one wholia year nexL before
filine; the Lill, in the case under conaideration the an-
swers to the original and amended bills ad;ait appellant had
been a reaident of Illinois 'for roanv years last ppst.' Thig
is to all intents and purposes as effective as would heive
been an adiuxsoion that sue had been a reaident of Illinois
more than one year continuously just before filing her bill,"
To the first point made it may be answered, there-
fore, that the admission in the pleadings of complainant pre-
clude her from raising the question of the court's jurisdiction
of cross-ccmplainant, and that in that the case was tried before
a jury it 77ill he presumed that sufficient evidence ivas intro-
duced in support of the ve^'lict of the jury and the uecree of
the court.
The supplemental cross-bill charged that complainant
had unlawfully and maliciously attempted the life of cross-
complainant with a pistol by attempting to shoot him v/ith the
intention of so doing and to wilfully arid maliciously taks his
life. The verdict of the jury found that defendant had attempted
to kill cross-complainant as charged in the crosa-bill, v/hich
recites that complainant made a willfva and malicious attempt to
take the life of defendant and cross-complainant "by means showing
malice, to-wit, by means of a loaded pistol which she fired at
him.«
In the caae of Ber g v. li«rg , Sao ill, 209, the 3u-
preii'je court said:
'^ in cas»B where tiic partieci ar<i ftntilled to a
trial by jury the rule is different, and the evidence doeo
not aave to be tnus preaervea. .'hia iiaa been held to be
tru« in cases of divorce, and formerly in casee cf mechanioa'
liens, the preauinption in such cases b^dng in Ta^cr of the
verdict until it is successfully impeached in some .node pro-
vided by law, Becker v. ;:' pci cer , 79 111, &3ii; Thatcher v.
That cher, 17 id. 66; Tewis v. P.cee , 82 id, 574."
The verdic-c of the jury finds that coiuplalnant
attempted to teJce the life cf croBS-complainaBt as charged in
hia cross-bill, and the chiirgc in tun cross-bill la thAt th«
RsgaiOt v/as mad© maliciously. The decree recites that the ?-.s-
saul t ipas made by means which showed nialice as chariisd in the
croaa-bill.
The points made against the validity of tJ.e decree
are extremely technical s.nd it is our view tiiat on the r»-rccrd
before us tVie decree rupht to be affirmed.
APFlRKJa).
Holdom, i\ J., and McSurely, J., concur.
.tu^a-
V rs
91 - 25862
SEORGE A. \t ARKS,
ll&intiff,
V3. •
DGKALB J. 0»^)NKEIX et al ,
befendants. \
JOHIT GU3KAY,
■VB.
\
Appellant,
GEORGE R. KARTIH, iieceiver/
Appellee
219I.A, 643
Al-Pmi. FROM CIPCtJiT CrURT OF
COOK COUHTY.
JIB. JU3TIC75 DBVKR DELIVmFD THE 0PINI013 OP TBffi COUHT.
This is an appeal by John Guskay from a decree of
the Circuit coiirt of Cook County entered June 13, 1919, which
•et aside and vacated a prior order of the court approving a
final report of the receiver and which disallowed the receiver
the a^m of $737.21 which had been credited to him in his final
report. The receiver appealed froci the decree of June 13,
1919, to this court and the appeal m.n decided in case Iio.
^y)p5916 (opinion not yet reported.)
"-'-^ A part of the history of the litigation is set
forth in the opinion filed in tJriat case, and it will not be
necessary to state here more than the fact that Guskay insists
that the decree erroneously allowed the receiver certain
credits which it is claimed were unwarranted by law and the
facts of the case.
It is our opinion that the decree must be affirmed.
The evi (ence introduced on the hearing does not ap-
pear in the record. The decree of June 13, 1919, sets forth findings
of fact in support of the conclusions of the chancellor, and ws
uiT
■i> /u0'<i*i:i
\ ^bfi^',.
nn ««
«,^i'n
. - V
are not permitted to question the correctness of suoh findings of
fact and conclusions in the absence of the imrldenoe introduced
on the trial.
The decree of the Circuit court will therefore be
affirmed.
A7FIHMED.
Holdom, I, J., and McSurely, J., concur.
'Hi
157 - 26928
Appelilint.
^ITTJkt VBOM MUNICIPAL COURT
OV CHICAOO.
219I.A
iLR. JuaTiC>; DH>fm BBLiV-KHEB TKF OIT'IOK OP THE COUIiT.
corporation
iXalntlff brought »ult against def en(i.<.^?it/iii tiae
Municipal oourt of Cxxicago.
The litigation grew out of a contract of empley-
ffient entered into between plaintiff arid def en slant December 21 «
1917, under which defendant «aaiployed plnlntiff pb a apl ftBtnan to
aell soap, manufactured by defendant, in Ccoic, L^ke, Kane and iM-
Jage Counties, Illinois.
In a atatefnent of claisn filed by plaintiff it ia
•11 (^ed that there was 'lup him at the tiiBe auit was brought for
coMBlsaions the aura of $3,551.82, In defendant's affidavit of
defense it is stated thut the parties to the contract entered
into a subsequent oral agreement to the effect that certain ex-
penses incurred by defendant in assisting plaintiff in the sale
of its pr-oduct in tiie territory mentioned were to be chargeable
to the plaintiff. These exienaes, it iu alleged, aaiounted to a
total 8Ui?i of $5,80(3, wjiich more than offset the plaintiff's claim
against defendant.
The original written contract, which it ia claimed
was fflodified by a subsequent parole agreement, contain** the fol-
lowing provision;
"There is to be nc wxpenoe fcr a ivortising cr
sales help of any i.ind to be borne by either of us unless
by autual agreement in writing,"
.'8
U
nox.tB'iO'rro-
, \Oi44rt
:.Oi.(Ut
11
id
Mtotrp^adud
Ji oJni
«»«aa«>'
ouixnq
. ttiinimt%
til«>'
■?(»
in«Dnol
-^s
IJLAOK »«
:noi:atv««f sn^
MX, apencsr, sales manager of defend&nt, teatlfied
that in a conYevaation witJu plaintiff in January, lvl< , he, the
witness, stated that ^t would be necessary to hire special sales-
aien; that plaintiff at this time agrec^d that in return for the
promises cf defendant tc stand the expense of certain adTertieing
he would pay whatever expense was incurred in eaploying these
additional sales'sen.
Mr, Bell, for the defendant, testified to certain
statefiients which tended to prove Rdmissiona by plaintiff that
snlaries for salesRien were to be chRVfred to hisi. 21aintiff»B
testimony directly contradicted that of Vt» Jtpencer. ilaintiff
denied that anything was said in the course of the nonveraation
with Jr. Bpenoer concerning either the expanses to be incurred
for salesmen or adTertising. }!e stated that he was never In-
formed that he would be charged with any expenses as testified
to by ?r, 3T>encer, Correapondence between the plaintiff and de-
fendant w. s introduced whicti it iy asserted tends tc ocrroborate
the testinsony of the plaintiff, Jud^i^nent vrse entered in favor
of the plaintiff for the h\X!1x of :^2425,24 and d«f€ndant appeals.
It ia urged on behalf of defendant that the jud<.gi)ent
of the court is against the wpif^nt of the 'Evidence. The defendant
attenipted to abo'v that the written agreement hnd "been Modified
by a mutual parole agreement of the parties. The burden, then,
rested ijpon it to 3how thnt the written egreement had been so
modified. Croft v. pervins . 174 111. 637.
There is a direct contradiction in the evidence
concerning the alleged parole agreement, f.r, aperxer and the
plaintiff directly contradict each other. There is some evidence
in the record which tends to corroborata the atatecients of each.
Under these circuiaatancea the trial jude«» who heard and saw th«
■XL
»*iJ "fc
witn«B8e«, wna in a much better pOBitJLon to judge cf the weight
of tiie evidence tiian is thia court.
There ia nome evidence tending to support the
poeitiOM of sac:-: p?«rty to the euit, and we are unable to say
that reversible error was ootninitted in finding the issues for the
plaintiff.
The Judgment of the Municipal court is affirmed.
Holdoro, T , J,, and )-e Surely, J., concur.
176 - 25950
\
DAVID L. l&OSS, (icing business
&■ DAVID L. MOSS A\GO..
vs.
k
SAI'lTEL IdlTTKUSAN and TfATHAK
klTTELMASt doing bu8in€«s as
iflTTELlsAS BR03.,
Appellants^
V
AIPEAL 7R0M MUKICII-AL COURT
OF CHICAGO.
MR. JUSTICE DEVER DELIVERKD THB OlIKIOK OP THE COURT.
plaintiff recovered a jud^ent in the Municipal
ccurt of Chicago against the defendant for the sum of #150, and
defer dan t appeals.
Suit was brought upon a contract dated New York,
October 15 » 1917, under which the defendants by S. kittelman
agreed to purchass 5000 pounds of granulated egg yolk powder
from plaintiff for 43 cents a pound. The goods were to be
shipped to defendants at Chicago at a time prior to January
31, 1918, at the buyer's option, and payment was to be made
therefor net cash five days after their arrival. The contract
also provided that all claims in connection therewith were tc
%e presented within seven days from the date of the receipt of
the goods, and that any differences between the parties were
to be adjusted by arbitration in New York.
The case was tried before a jury. No evidence was
introduced on behalf of the defendant, llaintiff 's evidence dis-
closes that after the contract /as entered into the plaintiff, on
January 7, 1918, wrote to defendants asking them to "advise us
vtien you want us to have the goods shipped tc you, as we have
these ready in stock available at your order, the time for
shipment expires on the 31 at of this month and would thereforo
kindly request you to give us instructions as early as possible."
oe«es - avi
Defendants seem tc have paid no attention to this letter and
plaintiff at the end of January shipped the goods to Chicago,
drawing a sight draft which, with the bill of lading, accompanied
the goods tc Chicago. 130 response was made to plaintiff by de-
fendants either after the goods had arrived in Chicago or lAien
the eight draft had been presented to them for payment on two or
three occasions, until karoh 2, 1918, when defendants wrote
plaintiff a letter in wiiich, for the first time, they intimated
their objection to receiving the goods, giving as their reason
that plaintiff had shipped the goods **in sight draft against
B, I," In this letter defendants stated that they did not need
Biiy egg yolk powder at the time, but that they would accept the
goods at a price of forty>one cents a pound, the then market
price in Chicago*
We do not think there is much merit in the claim
that the evidence dof>s not sustain the judgment of the trial
court. It is undisputed that plaintiff laade every reasonable ef-
fort to deliver the goods in accordance with the ternis of the con-
tract. It is true that a sight draft with bill of lading attached
accompanied the goods to Chicago, but it was only after this draft
was presented several times to the defendants that the excuse was
made for the first time that the goods were not to be paid for
until five days after their delivery. Me think that on the whole
evidence the court was warranted in disregarding this defense. It
is our opinion also that there is no merit in the contention that
plaintiff failed properly to prove the amount of damages he sus-
tained by reason of defendant's breach of the contract.
Some valid objection is made to certain of the in-
structions given by the court to the jury. Hut in view of the
character of the evi lence th«» instructions given were not so er-
roneous as to authorize a reversal of the judgment ,
The jud£^ent of the i^unicipal court is affirmed.
HoXdom,p.j.,and McSurely, J., concur.
(«
187 - 25959 '\
H. FETTY.
▼ s.
Appellant.\
Appell'^e,
,L PROM MUNICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO.
21
o
/^
4 4
MR. JUSTICE UlSTm DELIVFBED THE OPIKlOK OP THl COURT.
Judgment wits entered for |23.25 against defendant in
the Mimic ipal court of Chicago, which he seeks by this appeal to
reverse.
Suit was brought by plaintiff on a promissory note
dated November 13, 1916, payable to the State street Pathephone
Company. The note was executed by defendant and it provided for
the payment by him of |;35.oo, $10. CO down and the balance at the
rate of $5.00 a month. This note was endorsed by the payee and
was delivered by him to the Bnpire aecurity Co., which in turn
delivered it to the Port Dearborn Trust & savings Bank, which
transferred it to the plaintiff.
The abstract of record fil d in this court gives us
no inforraation as to what the suit is about. It merely shows
that a statonent of claim with affidavit was filed by plaintiff;
that trial was had without a jury and judgment entered for plain-
tiff, we have held in numerous cases that failure to present to
us, in compliance with the rules of this court, n proper abstract
of record is of itself sufficient to .Tarrant an affimiance of
the judgment. )?or this reason, if for no other, the judgment
must be affirmed, we have, however, examined the evidence as
shown by the abstract of record, and it is our opinion that no
error was committed by the trial Judge which would authorise a
reversal of the judgment, so far as the evidence shows, plaintiff
was an innocent holder of the note and received it in due course.
Evidence offered by defendant wae excluded which it is said would
have ahown payment in full of the note to the payee named therein.
If we assume this to \>e true, it does not militate against the
right of the plaintiff to recover on the note. It is . ur opinion
that the affidavits filed in support of the motion for a new
trial were insufficient.
The jud^j^tuent of the Municipal court will be affirmed.
A3f71RMED.
Holdom« F, J., and i^o surely, J,, concur.
( ^t?:;
211 - a8«75
<_^
JACOB IktHmk %M KATILSA
KADEI^A,
v Appellant a,
t
▼ 8. \ •
J^ORAVA BIJIIDIHC AN A: LOAM f )
A^bCCIATIOH, » cor-fltratlcn, / )
A-i«llee./ )
ii««
Oy COCK COUSTY.
2l9l.i^- 644
jm. JUSTICK I)T!VFR DTET.IVSRlt) ?H1 G1»I?JI0K 0? ?HF COUPT,
jAceb FAdara and £:atildft Kadera filed their bill
of ccrcplaint in the iiuperior oourt of Cook county in wiiicto they
prayed tiaat the defendant, i orava Building and hoan Association,
he decreed to exeoute to oo&:^lainant a release of a certain mort-
gage on real eatate giTen to aeoure the payment of a principal
sue of $l«400t ^7i-4leh eoffiplainants had borrowed froM defendant.
The traniiactions which resulted in the execution and delivery of
the iBcrtgage occurred during the years 1914 and 1915, Joseph A.
Cerny was secretary of defendant froo; the date ef its organisa-
tion in 1911 to January, 1»17, and he was also during this tima
engaged on his oen account doing a real estate business at
2330 tiouth sawyer avenue, Chicago. Bef«nd»nt»s office was lo-
cated at 23ot/ South Keman avenue, a distenee of about one-fourth
of a mile from Cerny's real estate office. The evidenca introduced
on the trifll tends tc prove tiiat Cerny had custody of defendant's
securities, papers and records, it was a part of his duties as
secretary to draft oort^ages, notes, rel <»se de ds, tc., for
defendant, and generally he conducted negotinticns rrith stock-
holders and others doing business witu it.
under defendant's by-laws Cerny was required "to
preserve the records ef the Association, to keep its accounts
4..T
by a dlouTE»l« entry •y»tera pretocribed by th« board, tc collect all
dues, interest, fines* and other noneya tiiat omy be due the
Asaooiation and receipt for the aame* paying the fund* collected
to the Treaeurer at every regular meeting of the board, and taking
his receipt ti^erefor. "Jointly with the president ue is empowered
to release A^isociation aortgages when a loan has been repaid in
full, and upon such release he shall return to the borrower all
papers held by the Association and appertaining to such loan.**
section 5 of Article 11 of the by-laws is as follows:
•The Treasurer shall not receive any aoneys for the
Association except frcia the; lecretary."
section 7 of Article 12 provides tiiat •
"A borrower raay repay a lean at any time, in part
or full, by {riving thirty (iSC) days notice to the Associfttioa
of itis intention of so doing,*
Illinois £itf>tutes provide th»t -
"Any mebiber who anall have obtained a loan or advance
on his shares, anvl who aliall have given real estate as security,
nay at any tine upon giving thirty days* previous notice in
writing repay %ixe sasBe,
« * # -i* i« *
"irovided, that all sottl events iisade in periods in«
tervening between stated monthly meGtin^u of the directors
shall be made as of the date of the stated xucntiUy meeting
next succeeding any such settlmwent ,"* ♦ + * (Kurd's !;, S,»
ch, Ski, sec. B5b, 6c; J, k A, Ann, iitat., »ec. H^Li.,)
The mortgage which was given to secure the payBoeat
of the loan to complainants was dated Janu««ry 19, 1916. After
its execution and delivery Jaocb Kadera becasie in arrears in pay-
ments due defendant and he applied te Cerny, defendant's secretary,
for a private loan for the purpose of paying off tlie mortgage,
Cerny applied to one .imidl, who on previous occasions had purchased
mort.ageB froa> him, tc meke the loan to Ffldera. Soidl agreed to
accept a mortgage tc be executed by radera and his wife in exchange
for a mortgage then held by hia which he had purchased fran Cerny,
The latter aiortgage, bein«i the third aiortgage involved in the
transaction, was for a sua sixty dollars less than the ataount of
the second iaortg««« whioh vae «xeouted by Kaderw and his wifs
for th« purpose of procuring a sufficient sum to pay off tha
first JCBOrtgage. to make up the difference between the second and
third mortgages linidl delivered hia personal note to Cerny for
the sum of S6C, The second nortf^a^e was given to secure the
paynent of 0l6c>O and was executed ^^ay 13, 1916; this isortgage
was turned ever ty cerny to iJmidl ftar the third morttjage which
was executed by one iiusil. This ttJird nortgage was sold by
Cerny to one i eo/iA, who delivered to oerny nis check for
$1448.04 in paystent Ui refor. At tJtiia tioie Oerny stated he was
secretary of the defendant association and that ne would pay
ooaiplain»nt *s indebtedness to it out cf tue awe received fros
iecha. SOd&e days after the closing of the transaction* that is,
after the delivery of tne aeoond »ertgage to inaidl and the sale
cf the third aiortgage to Techa and th«» receipt of payment there-
for by Cerny, Jacob j;adera requested Gemy for a release deed
cf the first mortgage which had been exeeutei to secure the in-
debtedness to defendant. At this tiae Cerny premised to procure
the release deed and he delivered a f^^tate-nent to Traders which
afcewed thst he, Cerny, hpd received the suta of ^48.72 in excess
of the 81^ due defendant by complainant. This excess amount
was paid to Radera by Cerny.
The evi enoe shows that Cerny in January, 1»17, was
discovered to nave ea«be£zled the money paid tc hia by ■ eoha and
which w«s intrusted to his> fcr the purpose of paying complainant*!
indebtedness to defendaitt. on a trial of the iseues coffirlsinants'
bill was disfiiissed for want of equity, complainants brinn the
ease to this court by appeal.
The Material facts of the case do not seaai to be
In dispute. The evidence shows that when Kadez« siade his ap-
plication to Cerny for a loan to pay off the indebtedness to
.Tdwaza )
def«ndani., c«rny in hie j?rivate oapaaity had agreed to proour*
iii« anount neoenaary for Uiia purpo»«. At or Juat before tiie
time tli« traj-i»aotions were completed ooiaplainfiilits were inaebted
to defendant in a euoi $46,7;d lees tiian the onrtount p».id to
Cerny by fecha, and this exoese sum «aa paid by cerny to coa-
plaln»nt Jacob f:adera. .ieveral mont^ia thereafter It was dia«
covered that C«rny, in yiolation of his trust* had embezisled
the money whioh was unquesticnably paid to aim for the purpose
of extin^ui shins oomplainantn* indebtedness tr defendant; it
is urfied that Ceamy reoeived this payment as secretary of de-
fendant and within the apparent soope of his authority as sueh.
It is said tJciat under defendant's by-laws cerny
had no authority to receive on be/<Alf of defendant any payments
of money except such as had becoise due to defendant* and
strictly and teclmioally this iu the lan(.-uage of the by-laws.
Ve are inclined to think, however, that under the authority of
eases decided by ^he supreme court iz would be a too narrow con-
struction of these by-laws to hold that a secretary of a build-
ing and loan association acting under by-lnwa such as these in
evidence would have power to aocfpt payre<Kt en behalf of jiia
principal only when sxioh debts had become due in a strictly
legal B«n»e. Cerny was clothed with apparent- auti lot ity to
negotiate toana raade by defendant. The evidence snows that
the ooxapl^inDnts were in arrears in payments due defendant at
the tiin'5 that Cerny received on coaplainants' account stifficient
money to pay the acafUnt due under the first Piortf;8g<?, and we
think it was well wituin tixe apparent scops of cerny's au-
thority under the circufiiatanoes to accept on beiialf of defendant
payment in full of compluinants* indebtednesa to defendojut.
In the o»s« of trairic iitate Loan Aaacciaticn v.
if
Kubllng , 170 111, E4G, the ;Hupreme court aaid:
*COM£on knowl«<i«e of the gonerml conduct and aian-
«€«n«nt of associationa known a« building aadooiations showa
that in the majority of onsee the 3ecr"«t«ry of auch an asso-
oiaticn hao largely the control of the details of tts busi-
ness, he Ken«rnlly po sseaoes the confidence of its sieiiibera
and patrons, who largely rely on him,"
In the case of } r»irie o t ate Loan Aasociation ▼.
Corrle, 167 111, 414» ttie aupreiue Court said:
^It i« well known that the members of such aaso-
exations do, and are practicaJly cciapoll ed to, rely upoa
the secretary for info caiat ion in regard to Utexr rights as
stocki^oldera, and we ti;ini: the autfociation eliould be held
responsible for liis oonduot In offioe. In thit> case we are
of the opinion the court ri£.:htly held tne aauooiation bcond
by the acts of the secretary,"
The oTidence does not disclose that oonplainants
kn«fw for several months after they had provided for the payment
of their obligfttion to the defendant that Cerny had etubessled
the fiioney which had been intrusted to him for the payment of the
first luortgage.
It ia quite tru« that the instant case is different
in its facts frcos'the Gorrie and ^ublinjj ^ oases supra , yet asid«
froja the express lanijua^'s of the .y-lawo and the statutes, the
payment of the first eaortgage to the secretary, though unmatured.
was such a transaction as would ordinarily be regarded as eomin^g
within the usual duties of a secretary of a building tmd loan
association. It way be conceded tiiat Cerny acted in part of the
transactions referred to as the agont of coiitplainant. xt is
Clear timt he did not represent defen-oant in procuring the loan
for coiBplainants ^ich was secured by the execution of the second
mortgage, it is our opinion, iicvrerer, that he received the .iioney
paid to him by pecha as the agent of defendant. };e accepted and
held this money under an ex) resa a^creement to pay off the first
aortgage, that is, the mcrt^iage securing the Indebtedness to de-
fendant, .and for this purpose he acted as defendant's ngent.
It is asserted that defendant connct })9 held to have
waived a thirty days qptice provision of the by-laws and the
statutes, because the evicSence in the ease do«s net show that
defendant ratified the con.'iuct of its agent, or that it had ao*
tually accepted the payment m^ae by complainants to cerny of
their indebtedness to defendant. Defendant's by-laws, so far
as 8J4}vn by the abstract of rricora, inJioaie that Cerny alone
was authorised to receive iscneye on behalf of the dcfeniiant,
its treasurer wiua expreaaly prohibited from receiving any r.oneyt
for defendant except fros the secretary , i30th the statutes and
the by-laws quoted above provide that any sinmber of tlie defendant
aseooiatiOR had the rlpht to repa^ a loan nt any time upon giviDgt
thirtj? days notice in writinf- of an intention tc <lc so; end the
question to b« detarniined here is idiether defendant's secretary
could, on defflridont'3 bt^Vialf, waive the giving of this notice.
It is our opinion that he c^ul 4, and that It wac not incumbent
upon the ccnsplainnnts to 3how, pfter pajmicnt of th«^ lean to the
secretary and its receipt by hirn ^ith full knowled|?e of the in-
tent and puTjsoae of the coaplninanta, thsit the defendant had
otherwise ratified his action, or that it had actually received
the payment tsade tc its secretary.
Thf3 clear nsaning of the by-laws and atetutes is
that a meaiber of a building association such as defendant could
repay a loan at any time upon first giving the required thirty
days notice. The thirty days notice provision was incorporated Jn
the act and by-laws for the benefit of building: and loan associa-
tions; it constitutes a limitation on the right of co.'r.plainants
%a pay the loan. The defendant, of course, through its proper
representative could have refused payment until such tiae as the
legal notice should be given; but it could have waived t^iis
'Hi
■ M,i
prlTil«g« and aooopted payai(»it wltiiout notic*, and In exerel»ing
this right of waiver, frcn the nature of its orf,Rnlz«tion and
the ohemoter of Its husineSB, it »f«eaiB reaaonable to holi that
its intention ao tc do would almost n«oe8aarily ba expreaaed by
the Action of ita Secretary, "rho alone waa authorized to receiTo
p>»ym«nt8 on ita behalf.
In the caae of (. ■ olujiibua BuDdin^, and I o n n Aaeooiatiw
"^ ' '^"rlP't e, 192 111, ia«, relied upon by the defendant, the .su-
precje court hel f1 that a aeoretary of ft building and loan aasccia-
tiOB not havinf^ nii*horlty to receive oertpin payaents from ita
oraBbera and auoh seoretnry not having been hold out by the aa-
aociation na having' auoh authority, and the aeaoclation not hniving
received any benefit from such payaenta, it wua not estopped to
deny ita liability therefor, in the pre»«nt oaae, however, tiia
eviienoe i» clear that the aaeret&ry did have aut}^>ority and it
waa hia duty to reoeiive the pay]B>^t mode to hiiB by oomplalnanta,
aubj<^et only tc the riM^t t^f ^ha defentiant to require, if it aaw
fit tt do ao, tiiirty daya notxce of the intention to laake the
payments. Th< evidence ahowe tJaat the paynent waa made to oerny
in the usual courae of busineaa and ne had both the actual and
apparent auihorit.v to receive payaent on benalf of defe««iant.
Afaperb ;^ v. no we , 146 la, 16ic.
In the caae of jancheater Building and Loan Aeeooia -
tion V. neardJiley , 7A B. J. i?. 714, the court said:
"Vhe money rfhich was paid nao not duea, and was not
paid by a member on account of duea, but aaa paid to satisfy
a debt duo the aaacciation, , f courae, sue; peynsent must be
nade to acme ona who is either atecifically or impliedly au-
t}:iori2ed to receive it."
The evidence ahowe that the oozapl ainanta acted in
good faith thrcut^hout th« tranaaction and that they paid defendant
the full aaiount due it. This payment >wa8 of neeeaaity asade to
defendant's agent, who had exj.rca8 authority to receive it; that
he wnbeexled the raoney i« no fault of ooeplRinAnta, and equitably
ttacy ou^ht net to be oLnrfrnd with hl» dlahonesty.
In vol, 9, Corpuo Juris, 939, it ia aaid:
•A pre»crib«d notice of withdrawal Is usn&lly re-
quired by tiue by-le-»8, but aucii notice need not be in •nting
unless 00 reouir*»d, and even is>herr> required the asscolatlon
aiay waive a writtwi amj accept an oral notlee, or It raay
waive any kind of notice."
3ch!;iai>oher v. '^olf . 125 IJI. Apj , 81; v:cjrenney v. r.lamond atate
Loan A tt»Q elation , 15 Del. 557.
We are Inclined to a^.ree with the contention that
neither the statutes nor the by-laws prohibited the defendant,
either exrressl ' or impliedly, froa» snterinj^ mte an ngreeAient
with the complalnanto thrcvigh its aecretary for a repaynent of
the loan without giving a thirty daye notice of an intention to
do »o ,
It is not material that the payss'^nt tc Cerny was
made at a place other than defendant's office, which was located
In the rear of a saloon, and which was used by def en lant for its
weekly meetings, • iralrle Utnte I,can v. I'ubling , 17,' ill, 24'),
•"he decree of the superior court will be reversed
and the cause reaianded to thRt court wltn direoticna tc ':;nter a
decree as i rayed in the bill,
RKVSSaJCD AHi) REliAliDSD
fITH T.lHlCTlOjqa.
HOldosi, j , J,, concurs and I£cSure]y. j., dissents.
cituociav
210 > 25962
SKSRiAM T, COCPHH, \
Appellee,
▼a.
I. I), ZMAS, \
Appellant
PROIS liUNICll'AL COURT
OP CHICAGO.
219 I.A. 644
KR. JUJTICB IMTm BELIVKRKJ) Tlffi Ol'IKION OF THl COURT.
plaintiff brought suit in the i;unicipal court of
Chicago agoinat defendant in an action for forcible detainer of
prenisea owned by plaintiff. Judr^ent was entered against de-
fendant wJtiioh he seeks to reverse by app«al to this court.
The complaint filed in the cause deecr bes the
prenisea in queation as follows: "Apartmi^nt on third floor of
building known as 4746 Ingleside Are,, Chicago, 111." It is
insisted that this description is so defective as to warrant
a reversal of the judipient. The eviaenoe shows that the apart-
ment in question is located on the ti^iird floor of a three story
building wiiioxi occuj-ies the single nujuber 4746 Ingleside avenue,
Chicago. 3o far as the abstract of record shov/s, this objection
is Btade for the first tiine in tnis court.
In the case of Haynea et al_. v, jherwin-vVill iaiaf, Co.,
126 111. App. 414, it was neld ti^at an objection to the auffi-
Cienoy of a complaint in a forciblr detainer action should be
presented in the form of a motion to quash, find that en objec-
tion made after the trial has nctually coflinienced coates too late.
This case also held that the description of premises in a com*
plaint in a forcible detainer suit need not be technically cor-
rect and that a general description is sufficient if from the
OOBplaint the property c«n be located. The objection to the
■ufficiency of the complaint coses too late.
It la shown ^y the abstract of record that en me-
tion of eomplAinnnt a change of venue was granted in the causa
froa Honorable Joseph S, lABuy, one of the Judges of the M\mi*
cipal court. The order granting the change did not specify
what judge the case was to be assigned to. The record shows,
however, that the cause was tried before Honorable John a,
Swanson, Judge of the Municipal court, before a jury which re-
turned 8 verdict finding defendant guilty of unlawfully with-
holding possession of the premises. Here also the objection
comes too late, uo far as the record discloses, the defendant
went tc trial before Judge jwanson without objection; and even
if it can be said that the order granting the change of venue
was defective, the defendant has by its conduct waived any right
to any advantage that oiight otherwise have accrued to him from
the error.
It is insisted for the defendant that the plaintiff
was not entitled to possession of the premiees because it is
Shown that he had leased the. to one E, K. Cole, There is no
merit in this contention for the reason that the lease to cole
had been canceled on the morning of the day that the present
suit was brought. The lease was canceled not latf?r tiian nine
o* clock on the morning of Kovamber 3rd and the present suit wm«
begun about three o'clock of the same day.
Some objection is made to the rulings of the court
on the adisission of certain evidence. No such error was comr^ittad
in this particular as would warrant a reversal of the judgpient.
The judgment of the municipal court is affiruied.
Holdom, 1, J., and 'AcSurely, J., concur.
222 - 25994
WILLIAM G. MUSoOJif, doing business
not in c G rpo rat ©d ,
Appella,
TS,
'%■
MRS. AiiNA STRAUSS, (Iping \)U
as yRj!;D 3TRAlfS3 DYS %CI«tS
as PPJED 3TKAUS3 DYiSR^ A C
) AipEAi. imois llUiaCIPAL
)
) CJJRT OJ? CHICAGO .
)
)
^19I.A. 645
1^1^. JUSTICE DSVER DKLITSRSB THE OS'IHIOBf CI? njli COURT.
Plaintiff brouRht euit against defendant tc re-
cover fcr sn alleged breach of p contract entered into between
the parties. The contract ccnsiatu of a written prcpceition
made by plaintiff to inatall a Ko, k-36 kunson carbon cansuaier
on a boiler loca^ea in prei-iiot** owned and operated by defendant.
The prcpouai was accepted by aefenuant en Auguao X6, 191b. The
contract did not contain aii exprests wurrauty that the article
sold to def endant ^would perforai any iipecial services or tiiat it
as reasonauly well adapted to cause a laore eccnoruical and effi-
cient operation of the boiler, A provision i.j as follows;
"All previous coRBounicaticns between the purchaser
and the cc/opany, :/, G. i.'un8on, or their representatives, either
verbal or written, relative tc the subject matter of this upeci-
fi cation, and .7hicn do not fona a part tnsrecf, are hcsreby
abrogated, and this proposal and specification \7hen duly exe-
cuted constitutes the agrecxasnt between the parties hereto,
and no modifioationa of the agreement shall be binding upon
the parties hereto or either of th«a, unless euch B)odlficationt
shall be in writing and signed by the purchaser and the vunson
Carbon Consumer Co., !lot Inc., v/, G, kunson, proprietor,"
It is ins s ted on behalf of the plaintiff that th«
contract ia in writing; that it is unambiguous and that the full
agreement entered into by the parties must be found within its
four comers; that tne contract ia for the purchase of an article
under its patented or trade naaie and lihat unaer the uniform sales
Act no implied warranty can be written intc it. The plaintiff
st^d .A.i eis
fiiGGOS -
leBtilied on direct esasuainsticn that the device in question was
P&tented; ti;at it was ilelivered tc dcsfendant in oomplianoe with
tne teruiB oi the contract ana tJmt she had refused to pay there-
for,
ilia court o-wtr objection admitted evidence which
tended to anew that the device delivered to defendant did not
perform aervicea of any value to her, and that in its operation
certain damage waa done tc the boiler.
The evidence introduced for defendant also tends
to prove that aht knew little or nothing about the operation of
the boiler and that she had no knowledge whatsoever of the
character of the device in question except asj she wae informed
by plaintiff; that he had on several occaaions during a period of
about a iucnth solicited her tc purcliase the cevice and tlriat the
contract in question was the result of his pronases and agreement!
to fettRCh a device tc thp Iciler tliat wculd cause i^. to give more
efficient and eccncmical service, on cross examinetion the plain-
tiff deniRd that he had msde any repreaentaticne concerninK the
saying
deYice;^thfa he did xiot tell defendant vhat the device wee fori
that a Mr, Baua had informed defendant thereof and that he» plain-
tiff, merely called upon her to "see the size to be used on the
plant and to draw up » contract,"
The evidence, if admissible at all, is amply sufficient
to warrant the conclusion of the trial Judge thnt the device in
question was unfitted to perforcj the service for defendant irtxich
the plaintiff represented at could and would perform, as testified
to by defendant, and we are inclined to hold v/ith the trial ccurt
that the preponderance of the evidence was decidedly in hex favor.
A paragraph of the Uniform Sales Act provides as follows:
•^i--\;
*In caae cf a contract to sell, ox* a atile of tiie
syjecified artiole under its patent or trade name, there ia
no implied warranty as tio its fitness for any particular
purpose.*
The article in question does not seeni to have been
sold under the name under which it was patented. The patent des-
cril»es the device as a new and uaeVul improvement in •♦amoke-Flue
Bainpers for Feeding Air to Cosbustion-ChaEabers,"
lijxcept the contract in question no evidence was in-
troduced showing tliat the device had a trade or patent name. The
evidence tends lo ahow that defenuant aid not intend tc purchase
any particular device by its pateiited or trade nowe; that her pur-
pose was to provide for an econoinical operation of the boiler; that
to effect this puz'pose she applied tc the plaintiff and that she
acted upon laia advice and suggestions.
X^ior tc the passatsc cf this law qucted above oral
eriience was adaiisslble in an action on a written contract for the
purpose of showing the relationship of the parties to ssach other
at the tlEe a contract is entered int-:» so that the court fiiight be
placea in a pcelticn to construe the contract in the light of that
relationship, our attenticn hfts not been directed to any authority
whicl' ohfngea the Inw in this particular,
Ir the C6.se of Tiew Idee. Arc Lifiht Co . v. Rennecker Co ^
195 111. App, 290, it is said that vhen a manufacturer sells good*
for f specific use there is an in^plied warranty on his part that
they are reasonably fit for such purpose. The eviaencc tenas to
■how th».t i.rs, Strauss desired, on the application and insistanct
of plaintiff, to purcliawe the device in question trnd her wishes
in this respect seeu; to have been caused by the specific proinises
of plaintiff, Bhe, cf course, knew tl^at the contract provided for
the purchp.se of a device the operation of which would, she believed.
be prcfltaWe tn her; but ahe states shew knew nothing atcut the
princljlP's on which it wpsn to he rperated. In other word©, we
think the evidence discloses that 9he relied in the making of
the contract upon the expert cpinion and adyioe of the plain-
tiff snd that she rnposed confidence in his prcmiees.
It iB our opinion that aaide from the question of
an express oral warranty the plaintiff was bound by an implied
warranty that the prticle delivered to plaintiff was reasonably
well fitted and adapted for the purjoae for which it vrais intended
to be used.
la the case of Craip v. pel 1 et . 209 111, App. 568,
the court said:
•The implied vrarrarty Is pn obligr^ticn iaiposed by
law, ♦•♦^*«-» Thr general rule, hCTrover, is well establibhed
by autlorities that nmri^rntieB rray be iiri],litd when the con-
tract is in rritirg as u'cl"? bs when it is oral,"
As Bteted, prior tc the L^niform Gsles Act of 1915
( Call aphan»B 1916 nt. Gupp , 1021 (4) et seq.) whore the purchaser
of a specified appnancc fiiO not rely en the judgmeiit or skill
of thf> seller, but rrr.e as familier with the appliance as the
seller, there was no implied warranty by the jseller that the
appliance ^ae rcasonsibly fit for the purpose for which it ^as
bought. IJMchs & Lar^; C c . v, yittredge &. ^ Q »* *'*2 111, 8£.
Section 12 of Chapter 121 -A I'urd's Rev. otat , of
Illinois 1917, provides thst -
"Any affirm© ti on of fact or any yTC-.^^ise by the
seller relating to the goods is an express warranty if the
natural tendency of such aff iritiation or promise is to induce
the buyer to purchase the goods, nnd if the buyer purchases
the goods relying tnerecn,*****
Defendant's evidence tends to prove that the defend-
ant was indiiced to purchase the device by representations xaads
by plaintiff, and under 3ec . 12 of chap. 121 -A Kurd's Rev. Stat,
of Illinois, 1917, above quoted, he became bound by his state-
tJt.
mi^sao
flients. ?heae ropresentations or. Uir- part of plaintiff, vmex-
preased p£« they ware in the \irittt;n contract, vrere i.rcparly
siaowri by oral testiacny. The casea of Kersler; v, '-yest Coast
Roofing Co., 2C4 111. App, 477, and ChlcRgc -UreLouee y>nc 3II0
Fixture CO . v. i.iEhXand pinning Ifill !*nd Lu^iber Co., 206 111,
App. 458, do not aid the coTitenticn cf plaintiff.
It is cleaental that the consideration for an ex-
press written prcrtiee aay hf? inquired int"> by parcle. The de-
fendant insists that the ccneiderat icn for her proraiae to pay
for the devlca iii question was the express oral premise and
agreement of the plaintiff to irstell s device which ^;»ould
perfcraa certain specified services fcr the defendant.
Iio reverBible error ttps consmitted hy the tri**!
ccurt in giyrixn^, refusing tc give, cr ir thr mcdif icaticr of
certain prcpositicnn of law, ncr in its rulings en the ad-
nisaicn of evidence,
The Judonent cf the trial ccurt win therefore be
affirmed.
AITIRKia).
HoldOB, r. J., find '.-cSurely, J., concur.
.JJ
24S - 2601
next frit^nu, \
\ / ; ta^^Kkh rilOIi CIRCUIT COUKT
Tca,
I / ) oy COOK comrrv.
45
I'liifr is an rip?r:al frcm a judfcmect ol the cirouit
court c-i Ccolc County eKteret? in thai couit in fa^cr ct j-iain*
tlif foi- the teuiiJ of ^7,S0C,rC',
April 2, 1917, liiQ ?.'tali*tilf , a boy niwe j'oarfi of
af;e, tfhilG i.a the «k«t of croaa^ng jTortb Qlark street in an e&stez^
ly directicn at or near the Intersect ion uf tr.at his-^u^/i^y ';.-itli
HOBlyn pl&oe, saa atruc^; ay *n ';>b>tc;aoDiie trucjc oev^ng in a
northerly direotioa on Jgorta Cl«rl£ 8ir«€t. is<"crth <jXurk street
is a nortii a&u south atx'eet sad Rcsiyc pluoe extends -j&ai. and
vest. Tiifc evicience mircUuced tor th«» plaintafl '-ckos tc 8i;0w tiiat
as he tttcia.ptec» to crcaa lovth Clerk street- i !■©* itu weax 9ia4<«allc
te the acuth walk ci^ ueelyw p3.?;oe i»e a-w th« i»utemobtle truck run-
ning north ',ni iTerth c'larlc iJtrfjet ?thra it wa» -• o.iaUmce cf ;-:.i.6ut
listj fatrt :-j-,iutii of htci; *.h9^-. thfl ri^.intiff attfwipte<-i to cro»» oiie
atr'^oh m fi^c-nli of ths ni^rr^acbinic truck; ttis.t *ii«n h« raacaad the
car triiolvs v=il.1 Jlom en TTorth niw"V atreet he lcok«d toward tha
south and .wj-r t.hg truck ribsut 35 or 40 feet e.way; that he con-
tinued .b.i*i rv.jur»o Rcrosg t.u« ?trf*«t e.n:; vas atniO- by the truck
asij. th<?Teby yeceivwd injurieai.
?hij (rriaenoQ iM<.ro4uced alju tends to snow that tae
plaint i.ri: !»tt.«ifflpt.*»d to crosH Kortii Cl-'^r,'; street at a }?«^oa uaually
Ui«d uy padeatriana lar -hat purjio;>«i and th.xt the acci ient ooourrad
tiTOdS - 5^i
in a thiokly populated neighborhood.
Xt Is Insiated that the evidenoe introduocd on
the trial does not disclose that the defendant was guilty of
9ctlonabXe negligence and thPt the plaintiff was guilty of neg-
ligprce .7hich crntribut^d to cause rue accident. There is juuch
force in thft argument laade on beJrialf of the defendant that if
the plaintiff had acted with due caution he would net have at-
tenapted to cross the street in front of the approaching truck
when, ns plaintiff testified, he saw it when it was not more
thsn 55 or 4C feet frcirj him» Two witnessps, Horn and fcCauley,
eaployea of p telephone company, were fitting in a repair wagon
on the east aid<3 cf Clark a tree t aome distance stuth of the
place vyherc the noci.rnt occurred. One of tiiPse witnesses said
he saw the boy rurirdng across tiorth Glar.Tc street at a point south
of Hoslyn place and that he ran into the aide of the truck. Mc*
Cauley also testified that he saw the plaintiff running in a north-
easterly directiqjo just bcfcre the accident.
on the whole evidence we are inclined to the view
tht».t the question of defendant's n-^gligenoe, as alar that of
the plaintiff, was a question of fact which was .-rop'rrly left to
the determination of the Jury. When fue consideration is giren
to tJtie c>iarncter of the neighborhood 'vh re ths accident happened*
the age of plaintiff, and other c i re xjun stances attendinsj the acci-
dent, it cannot be said as a matter of law t^iat the driver in
charge of the truck was without negligence, or that the plaintiff
by nis conduct vvss guilty of neglig«ioe which contributed to cause
the accident. There dees not appear to have been any obstacle in
the street which seriously obstructed either the view of plaintiff
or the driver of tiie truck. The truck witn its load weighed about
six tons, and it was being operated in a ti.iokly settled neighbor-
hood. The jury had sufficient evidence before it to v?arrant a
finding that the drirer, had he exoroiaedthe o«re which was desnanded
of hljTi in view cf the aharacter of the neighborhood where the ac-
cident occurred, coul^ have Been the plaintiff in time to prerent
the fccoident. The evi ence tends to show Ui&t the boy waa struck
by the west 8id« cf the truck. The driver tostified that at the
time- of t>ie accident the truck naa moving at about eight aiiles
an hour; oth(>r ^iritneseea stated that the speed oi the truo. .iab
about twelve lEllea an iiour.
It is not enou«^i, under the ciroum&tancea attending
the acciaent, tc £i:io.7 th&^: thr truck «aa beirig opfrrated in compli-
ance with pat):ia Xawo regulating the ajiefid of such vehiclea. ^ere
heavily loaded truck! ar^ b^ing operated in thickly settled dis-
tricttj, fii re ohilrtren nnd ndulta are continuoutily orosaing
sti'eete, it in required of the cirxvers of such vehicles to exercise
a de£,ree of care coizuuensurate i«ith the danger attending the run-
ning of such vehicles at points ^h.jre persons crosaing th?
stref-t3 &T<. m d&ajt'er of t.:ing run down, and, under suca cirouiu-
stances, the operaticrj of a truclc even at the rate of ten or
twelve allies an hcur, may aiiiiount tc negligence.
In the case of K e sale r v. Af^shburrt , 157 III, App.
532, the court said:
**App!^ll ee'a conduct ia to be ,judg-'~d vitn reference
to th • stress of appearances at the time, and noc by the cool
estijaatft oi the actual danger formed by outsiaera after the
event, if appellee had notice of the apprcac;. of the automo-
bile 125 feet away, as appellant olaims, this dia not neces-
sarily mnk^; hisa guilty of contributory negligence ^n not
avoiding a collision with it, as he hnd a right to assume
that it would approach at a lawful rate of speed and to
calculate upon pasainK in front of it on that a»3u»ption.
If he jiade an error of Judfa:ra<?nt , this would not conclude
him on the QUisstion of reasonable care, if the autcpaotile
was approaching him at an unlawful rate of speed,"
As stated in the }' easier case, it was required of
the driver of the truck in question tc use all the care and
caution whic:^ an ordinarily prudent driver wculd luave exercised
bxr»« iik'o
and'^r tsic sirtftiiaatairiOijs ':mia:-i o^fiatc-il ati »i»ul just liofore tho ao-
cideut htipiJ^ined. And nijatiier no iJLil cjc«rci.ie auc.i prudejioo "■jsaa,
we tiiink, a «5.^<?8tiiui !>f fit!!; f,)r fch» Jui'v, The >laj.nt,lff raa
CBll(5<i upon tc ascercise oo^^il"/ guoii cnre far iiia d&fehy -aa \wou:.<S
be Xv>quixe<i kiT p. boy yf ;iis bge and intelligevict;, An«J e^eu If
it c«n "bsj sRid tiwic he e/rcneously beliaved tnat ii e Viad »'u"ri-
cifcul tiiue tu OTuss tilt- alir^dt In front ol the apj-roi»C;Jlii^
truck <9ltuoat bfiln^ attraotv, «.hi« XhoI, do&6 uol oL.ar4.e hLi^ ca Si
fliStter of I'iVi wifeti ncricvibutcry negiifettiifc*. Uuder UiC- oiroum-
atar;c«jd wiii'jh uci feted ut whe cjjufc ol" ine acci.lout Lji,i l;i.'.« iinT-cned
the- :;iiy apoii tho drivei oT '.4i« li-iiCA tu "i>e laiwlTul of L-m .fact
thci eiiilaren, more ex itsa iifeedlcfti? cT aUuVin^ w'sri^iclou, .varo
likely to orcBSi tbc yubiie atrewt, s-na it v»4*i inouftitisnt a|*'^n hlni
to exercise r«R«nnaiie care to iiave iiia vei/iclfe ^-iijaier &jch oeii-
tr-cl fte woulu ceni to prujvfcnt aucit an jvvici darJ, aa cccurred iu
tne rreacnt ows-'e.
rh« J|ud«iaei:it of th« Cii"£:ai". goui t wi* J b« affix'tued.
Holdcio, i , .7,, «nd Vcfiurely, J., c<»o«ur.
276 - 26C48
ABRAHAM HCSOVSKY, \
Appellant ,
V8.
AmxUR ft COUr'AI^Y, a corjporntion,
FRAJKLIN MaoVEAOH & COiaPANY, a
corporation, and JOHN ?. LAIXA .
CO&'ArsY, a corporation, \, / )
Appellees, tv y* )
1
AlP^^AL FROM CIRCUIT COURT
0? COOK COliHTY.
219I.A. 645
MH. JU3TIC1 mvm. DELIVERED THE OUNION OP THE COUHT .
The plaintiff filed iiia declaration, consisting of
four counts, in which he charged that the defendants had com-
ffl^tted an unlawful assault upon hixa and that they liad also been
guilty of other trespaasea against plaintiff's property and
business.
l^emurrers, general and special, were filed by the
defendants to the declaration, on argument these denmrrera were
sustained and leave »as given the plaintiff to file an amended
declaration within ten days. On failure to file an amended dec-
laration within the time specified suit was disBissed for want
of compliance with the rule, and plaintiff seeks to reverse this
order by appeal to this court.
The order sustaining the demurrer and giving leave
to aaend is as follows;
*It is ordered that said demurrer be and the same
is hereby sustained and leave be and the same is hereby given
plaintiff to file an ojraended declaration herein within 10
days from this date."
NO exceptions were taken to the order sustaining th«
demurrers, nor does the record show that the plaintiff elected
to stand by his declaration. On the record before us it aiuet be
held that the order sustaining the deiiurrer and giving leave to
amend was not an appealable order, and we are not, therefore,
permitted to determine the question of the sufficiency of the
8*0ftS - df
■^rf^t'^tf ei
declaration filed "by the plaintiff, Ke bill of exceptions appe«r«
in the record and advantage can be taken of only such errors as ap-
pear on the face of the record.
The only point made Toy the plaintiff is that the
court erred in sustaining the decjurrers to the declaration.
In the case of C hicag o jrortrait Co, v. Chicago
crayon Co . . 217 III, 200, the Supreme court said:
"The circuit court merely sustained a dcr».urrer
to the declaration, and neither adjudged that the plF.intiff
take nothing hy the writ cr that the defendant go hence
without day, and the judfpnent contained no words of equiva-
lent meaning. There was no trial of any issue resulting in
a finding for the defendant, as there was no issue to be
tried and there %»s nothing in the nature of a determina-
tion of the rights of the parties,*
The record before us shows that the order sustaining
the ieraurrers to the decl?*ration was not a final judgment from
which an appeal would lie to thia court. On its face it did not
determine the rights of the parties. The order expressly gave
the plaintiff the rigtxt to airend his declaration v?ithin ten days.
He failed to dc ao within that time and no error was committed
by the trial court in its order dismissing the suit.
The judgment of the Circuit court wxll be af-
finiied,
AJfPIRlSD.
Hcldoffi, V, J,, and l.'cSurely, J., concur.
aaixii
wo
5.VflS
296 - 26069
FIRST STATE BAUK OF CbULTT?RVILLE, )
Appellee,
▼ ».
BAKI; OF COMfcHlCE ANI> SiBTINGS,
Appellant.
AUFj^L mm MimicrtKL court
OJt CHICAGO.
219I.A. 645
liR, JUSTICE UKVai DELIVERSD THE OPIHIOH OF THS COURT.
This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment
entered against it in the iconic ipal court of Chicago for tlia
sum of $2912.50.
A promissory note, which is the basis of this suit,
was executed April 12, 1917, by Vernon C. Leftwich, payable to
the order of himself and by him endorsed, for the sum of
$2,500 vith interest. At the time of the transactions which
gave rise to the litigation «. U, OrissMi was cashier for th«
defendant bank, and under its by-laws he had authority "to sign
drafts, checks, certificates of deposit and receipts for money
delivered, to indorse not^^s, bill, checks, drafts and acceptances,
and to perfozm all the ordinary business transactions of the banh."
At the time the note in question was introduced en the trial it
bore in addition to the endorsement of William G. Shedd, jr.,
that of the defendant bank by arisaom, its citshier.
The eYidenoe tends to show ti:iat j. d, Carlton, cashier
of the plaintiff bank, and Grissom had been brougixt up in the same
••ighborhood in Johnson County, Illinois, Grissom was a stockaolder
and director of the plaintiff bank between the dates December 1, 1916,
and June 21, 1917, en which latter date the defendant bank became
insclveirt.
In January, 1917, Grissom in a conversation with jsr.
Armstrong, president, and l^r. Carlton, cashier of the plaintiff bank,
O r Q
t:v'Gc*-:^ - »-i
• .^SAtt STATB Tv.
.^a;::r 'tu
^ ZiS'Ji
•f
;80 ,at3iJXf5 ,.>ii*ii*iV« .•Jt'u,
■t-»
tttm. «.
>> i&ju
xd;^jai
^liatsierii'
ISO ^ac
informed tiiem that tixe defendant bank was overloaned ^^nd he asked
them if the plaintiff could take $25,000 of defendant's paper.
Grissom was informed that plaintiff would taka $5,000 of this
paper if it bore the endoraanent of the defendant bajik, A few
days following tiila conTersatlon arissoia sent to plaintiff by
mail three notes, one of which was executed by Vernon c, Left-
wich, the other two being by IBn, G. Shedd, jr., and John W,
Shedd, respectively, each note being for the sum of ^2,500,
These notes did not bear defendant's endorsement and they were
returned accompanied by a letter from Mr. Armstrong, plaintiff's
president, in which he refused to accept the notes unless they
bore defendant's endorsement. January 27th the notes were re-
turned duly endorsed by defendant, by Grissom, its cashier. The
evidence shows that both credit and charge items were made on ac-
count of the transfer of the notes. At the time they were received
by plaintiff it had a deposit account with defendant and it
thereupon credited defendant's account witn the face value of
the notes. The defendant bank charged plaintiff with the amount
Of the notes as of January 18, 1917, tiie day on wiiich the notes
were first sent to plaintiff. The m. G. Shedd and Vernon C,
Leftwich notes became due in April, 1917, and were sent to de-
fendant for collection; it returned to plaintiff two new notes,
one of them, executed by Leftwich, being the note sued on.
These latter two notes did not bear defendant's endorsement
when delivered to plaintiff; they were returned to defendant,
were duly endorsed by it by Grissom, cashier, and re-delivered to
plaintiff.
It is insisted for the defendant that it is not
liable on the Leftwich note. The evidence shows that neither
the note in question nor the other notes involved m the transac-
tions with the plaintiff bank bore certain register numbers and
-o* no 9ii«si 9'xiov zsm^k 9s"t«sjbd anc r ^vi
i;:^v2';j fiffew x*<i^ »jBi.f iEKaTJ »iiJ to i'n
^Sfit&ix »ii^ £U&JUiw £io Ya£> Bdi ,*CXQX ,
.0 £raril»V Sfl« iii)^ . . . jSi
&a oiftir ban ,VXei . vi'isj
^urt nX iX 9adi itMba»li^ j«;)»X«r
Uiti efiodiiu^ii "Xft^. -:»cj ft'iod a[«ncf "ilXv tiw eaold
had. not been entered on a discount register kept "by defendant in
aecordanoe with the regular course of business adopted by it.
The defendant relies in the main upon its assertion
that its cashier was personally interested in the transaction by
which plaintiff got possession of the note sued on; that he, not
defendant, was the owner of the note; that he had no authority
or right to endorse the note as defendant's agent, and that
plaintiff had, or, under the ci re lim stances, should have had
knowledge of the fraud imposed upon defendant, plaintiff received
the notes in the usual course of business from defendant's cashier,
who was authorized both by the well known usage and custom of
banks and by the express provision of defendant's by-laws to en-
dorse notes and to perform all the ordinary business transactions
of the bank.
The case of Merchants ' Haticnal Bank v, Nicholos &
Co., 223 111. 41, cited by defendant, does not sustain its posi-
tion. In that case it was held that a principal may be bound
to the extent of the apparent authority he has conferred upon
his agent, and it was held that a party dealing with the agent
must stand ready to prove the agent's authority; that it was the
right and duty of a person dealing with an agent to ascertain the
extent of his power and to determine whether his acts were such
as to bind his principal, in the present case the authority of
the cashier to endorse the notes discounted with the plaintiff was
indicated by his office, but aside from that the evidence shows
that he was expressly authorized by his principal to transact the
business with plaintiff which resulted in the endorsement and
transfer of the notes to it. The evidence does disclose, we
think, without much question that by manipulation of the notes and
records of defendant, Grissom was enabled to overdraw his account
■ (^ •- r» »». -
ii9i»tn
ionjibi
.;a-;oii:
?7ef-. n*
:fC Tifx
with defendant to the extent of about |7,500. The evidence does
not disclose any facts, however, whiola would charge the plaintiff
with knowledge of the fraudulent character of Grissoi&'s conduct.
The notes in question did not iihen transferred bear what j, D,
Carlton called a discoturat number when they were received by him,
A witness acquainted with banking customs in answer to a hypotheti-
cal question, stated that the circi-mstanoes under which plaintiff
received the notes were a little unusual and that he would not
accept a loan under such circumstances. These circumstances
might liave caused some suspicion that the conduct of Grissom was
irregular or negligent, but they were not at all sufficient to
create a belief in the mind of Carlton or other officers of
plaintiff's bank that he was acting fraudulently and that he and
not his rincipal was the person actually interested* Only bad
faith will defeat the title of the endorsee of commercial paper
taken before maturity for value and without knowledge of any de-
fense thereto. Mere suspicion, the knowledge of circumstances
calculated to excite suspicion, or even gross negligence of the
endorsee in acquiring the paper will not defeat his title.
( Bradwell v. Iryor , 221 111. App, 602); Kavanagh v. Bank of
Americe . 259 111. 408.
In the case of ?aiolt v. Canright , 202 III. App. 502,
506, it is said that -
■The curiosity of an inquisitive person might have
been aroused by these letters, but it is certain that neither
actual knowledge of the defeat, nor knowledge of auch facts
as to make the discounting of a note bad faith are shown.
Neither the knowledge of suspicious circuci stances or even
gross neglifience will affect the title of an assignee in
the absence of bad faith,"
fage v. Hallam, 212 III. App. 462 - 468.
That the plaintiff or its officers had no actual
knowledge of Grissom 's conduct is alniost certain, one of plain-
tiff's officers had been acquainted with Grissom since their
i^-K'': '-.'■^.'i^b
Mi
.;j.V -1 **♦» i.iJ i.1
-. ,^ »<k » »■ .^_ -r.
ti»i>«l[J.ti iUvi
childhood. GriaBom and Ms principal had frequently transacted
business with plaintiff and there was nothing shown by the evi-
dence that would cause plaintiff or its officers to auspect that
Grissoa was not acting in perfect good faith. Plaintiff in no way
profited by Grissom's fraudulent conduct and it is perfectly
clear that ita officers would not consciously have become parties
to his fraudulent acts when by so doing, without prospective
profit, they would have risked $7,5oO of plaint iff As money. We
cannot discover from the evidence before us facts sufficiently
strong to charge plaintiff *s officers with notice of Grissom's
conduct. The fact that the notes did not bear a register number
and that in the first instance they Iriad been delivered to plain-
tiff without defendant's endorsement, were not, in our cpinion,
sufficient to give notice that Grissom was dealing for himself and
not for his principal; nor did the fact that he was a stockholder
and director of plaintiff's bank serve to give th^a any warning
that he might violate his trust toward defendant.
In the transactions in question Griasoffl was roting
within the scope of his authority as cashier of the defendant
bank, and in the absence of notice, actuPl or constructive, to
the plaintiff or its authorized agents of his lack of authority
to endorse the note, the defendant bank became bound by his act.
The Judgment of the l^unicipal court is affirmed.
A79ZRMED.
Holdom, 1, J., and iosurely, J,, concur.
'•3iJ USS..' ^JK_L •i-l'.S:^ .,.'i,.;S.
'iul i^i^M^ ^..u^ii L'
.;.4 Ic ...
32c; - 26100 \
JOKN- 0. coor.
Appellee,
TEECDCras H. SCHIFPZl;
Appellai^t,
FROM MUNICIPAl COURT
OF CHICAGO.
219I.A. 646
MR. JUSTICE DEVER DiELIVERE3i THE OPIMION OP 7H2 COURT.
This is an appeal by Theodore H. Sohintz, defendant,
from a Judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago in a toroibl«
detainer action brought against him by the plaintiff, John G.
Coon.
The owner of the preosilses the right to possession of
which ia in dispute between the parties, is Daniel K. Rothschild,
who executed a lease therefor to the plaintiff fcr the term from
October 1, 1919, to September 3o, 1920. At the close of all the
evidence the court ^ upon motion of the plaintiff, directed a ver-
dict in his favor. The verdict was entered as Jirected, Judgment
was entered thereon and the defendant seeks by this appeal to re-
verse the Judgment.
Defendant was in possession of the prnalses under a
written lease which expired iieptember 30, 1919, and he insists that
he entered into sun cral agreement with (/hiteside &. Wentworth, the
owner's agents, for an extension of his right to the possession of
the premises tintil liay 1, 1920, at an increased monthly rental.
Kr. Rothschild, the owner of the premises, testified that Whiteside
& Wentworth acted as his agents in the handling of the building and
that a fcr. Danz of that firm was his duly authorised agent, Mr.
Rothschild, however, testified that his agents had authority to
■*ke only written leases for the premises in question, and his
o->
f^W
■Ovltl
\i
S
testixaony in tJaia particular is not directly denied by any eyidenct
offered or received on beiie.lf of the defendant.
Tixe defendant testified that in the course of a con-
versation with i:r. Rothschild in which defendant said that the
agents had agreed to an extension of .is, defendant's, lease until
tjay li, 1920« Ur , Hothschild said he did not see any reason why an
old tenant should be dispossessed for a new tmant. This statement,
if true, does not amount to a ratification of the unautiiorized
act of the agents.
It may be concedel that the question of whether the
agents had entered into an oral agreement with defendant was a
question of fact for the determination of the jury, but as to the
matter of the authorixation of the agents to make auch oral agree-
ment, we think the evidence is undisputed that they had no such
authority and that the owner had not either expressly or impliedly
ratified the alleged oral agreement.
The judgment of the Municipal court will be af-
firmed.
AJPIKKED.
Holdom, P. J,, and KcSurely, j,, concur.
;5«»&iT« xnsH y^<i fc«in«i-
ho^at^'mb
mam'
h*-
;'«%d .£t3iia «::£i^»!n oi »ias-^& ®A^
.ossiaiuit^
245 • zm^.
WWLIX J, RBliTTO, )
\
m oerpor«tiOB« \
App vli Ant .
AI. FRCM ClJ^XJia? COURT
OF CCOK COUHTY.
219I.A. 646
i^R, jxiatici uomntiy dsxivsrkd thr orision of rm- ccuvt.
B«f«n;l»nt by t.^j^la appeal a«ka for th« rtYeraal of «
Judgaent airainat it of $12,5C0 is an aotlon to reecvtr e»aip«na*tlon
for peraonal injurioa* triad by a jury and Uie oourt, Tha aaaa
haa baae twica triad; tbe firat tiaia Uiora «aa a verdiot cf not
guilty. «• ragrat that the praaant judfisent Atust bs ravaraad and
the eausa rcuMindad fcr a third trial.
>14intiff waa foraojan for the i^ykaa ata«>l HoofiBg
Company which bad » contract vritn the fir&% of Hitter & iott to
cover the roof and aiding of the ahop of defendant vyith glaaa arjd
corrugated iron,* Kbile working on th^ aiding on the inside of
the ahop plaintiff plaeod hia hand on fc*ie trao> cf a orana operated
by defendarit nnd a or«n« ran over it inflicting the injuriea in
queation.
two oranea uaed thla traek, which waa nlonKoide of and
near the pl^eo vh«iTa j^luintiff and hia men ware worlring, llalntiff
praaented eiridenee tending to ahow there waa an a^ree^ent between
the concern doing thi» work and tne rajfreaeritatiYea of Cefendant
that whenever a crane waa about tc paaa the plaee ^exe the nan
were working it would atop and net proceed until it had warned
thaae workfuen s;; tixat tiiey might retuova froa danger.
After a new trial had been gnuated in the firat
trial the aaee waa (JiaBiissed for want of proaecution but rein-
atated by atipulation. upon avction of ilaintiff a char«ge of venue
di:^
wtk» tmk«n frost the trial Judge to «ho& the oase then was asaigned.
In the fall of 1918 plaintiff &\0Ted to adTance the oaae on the
calendar and eet It down for a new trxal and at Uic ease tine de-
fendant made a aotlon for a continuance on the ground of the ab-
sence from the state of three witneeeee lor Ua^ defense. Theae
were Edward Kyeraon, Charles Vallicre and liarry kin tier. These
jjen were all at tliat time in the service of the United states
gOTerrt»ent and it was iispossihle to have them present in person.
They were expected to giv« testuaony tending to negative the
agreement above referred to with reference to stopping the cranes
before passing the place wh«^e the men were working inside the
building. The motion to continue was not passed upon until the
case was reached December 9, 1916« v^en the motion was renewed.
This was resisted upon the ground that tha deposition of ur,
Valliere was taken, that Kyerson had testified on the former trial
and plaintiff had an unsigned statement frca t^'lntier. It is
argued witii force that as tula alleged agreeaent «ms verbal, de-
fendant could not anticipate Just exactly the funs In which plain-
tiff would present auoh conversation and txieref re could not ade-
quately anticipate w^iat would be sworn to in tula respect en behalf
of plaintiff; and, furthennore, because of the peculiar character
of this teatlfflony It was almost a necessity to make a proper de-
fense that these witnesses should be present on the stand to be
seen and heard by the Jury.
At the tiaie the motion was first made for a continuance,
that is in October, lOlB, we wf^re still In the midst of the great
war, but when It was ranewed at the time the ease was called for
trl»l in December, 19ie, the armistice had been sigried and thera
was a reasonable prospect that the personal attendance of thesa
witnesses could be had within a oiiert time. The trial court,
however, denied the ototios for continuance and proceeded with tha
>tt
tu
trial, fe ar« of th« opinion sueh. denial was erroneous. In
Kilea V. Banforth . 32 111. 59, it was hold that it is ground for
continuance that a aiCteriaX absent witness is a soldier on aetivo
oanipaign. Among ether cases holding that a aisilar motion for
ocntinuance should have been allovod are: Adams v. Col ton , 2
ScamiBon 71; Corbin ▼, The leople , 131 ill. 616; Kellyville Coal
Co . ▼. Hill , 95 111. App, 660. Adffii^sion that the absent witness
would testify as stated xn the affidavit is not always ths equira-
lent in prcbative foroe to his testimony given on the stand. The
appearance of a witnesa and his i&anner of testifying usually
supply Just the element of personality whicu enables a Jury
prcperly to weigh contradictory stat^nents, ws approve of what
was said in Hopkingcn v. Jones , 28 111. App. 409:
*It soastlmes occurs that the relations if th«
absent witness to the party desirinf: his evlcenoe and attend*
anee is such that his personal presence la as isnportant to
aid in the conduct of the trial as nis svldence upon ths is-
sue involYsd. And ndien euoh personal presence of the witness
is fairly shown tc the court by proper affidavit tc be reason-
ably and rroba^ly neosssary tc a fair trial and to prevent
surprises, then, »nd In suon oases the motion ought not to be
overruled because ths party may adnsit the affidavit.**
we hold that the motion to continue was presented in
apt tisis; that the supporting affidavit suffioiently oonplied with
the statute and under the cirousst&noes of the case the motion for
continuance should not have been overruled.
Objection is oiade to ths adsuission of statements with
reference to stopping the erans twenty feet from the workiaen and
ringing a bell, te.intior, to whoa such statoKienta are attributed,
was not nn agent of defendant and thereforv any agreentmnt by hiA
would not bind the defendant. We are inclined to think they arc
adnltiBible under the charge of general negligence and particularly
under the cc^int of fBj.lure to give plaintiff warning.
Valid criticism is raada of the first instruction given
at plaintiff's requtst. it was entirely too lon« and we do not
••• faow it oould hare been of any asai stance to the Jury,
Other points are made wtiioJa should not receive com*
ment from us at this timf- as the case must be r«sianded for a new
trial, ?or the error in refusing defendant «b motion for continuance
the Judt^jsent is reversed and the cause is remanded.
RSV¥3it3ED AlTD HJWAJTOED,
Boldoni, 1. J,, and 15ever, J,, concur.
::Jtt
123 - 25694
CHAPUAK 8c SlrlTH OOKPANY,
a corporation* \
plaintiff in irror,
vs,
CKICAOO BONDING & 3irR>?TY C0,»
« corporation.
Defendant in'ijlrror.
^
mmon to supthtor court
Oy COOK COUNTY.
219 I.A. 646
ifR. JUSTIC: MCSURSLY DILIV^ED THK OflNIOK OF THJ? COURT.
Kaintiff brought an action in d«bt on an mployee't
Fidelity Bond issued by defendant, seeking to reeoTer $2641 .43,
but the trial court directed a verdict for $361.76 and Jud^i^aent
was entered for this amcunt. Plaintiff appeals, claiming it
was entitled tc the larger amount.
The bond in question was dated Becember 30, 1913,
and by its terms defendant agreed to pay any pecimiary loss, not
exceeding |1C,00G, which the plaintiff, an employer, might sustain,
of money or other personal property by any act of personal dis-
honesty, theft, «nbexzleraent, etc., by Ix>ui8 F. Weiss, an employee,
while in the en^loyer*s serTice. Under date of December 24, 1913»
defendant sent to plaintiff a letter stating that tfeiss had applied
to defendant company for a fidelity bond and that as the issuance
of 8uch bond would depend upon information furnished by plaintiff,
the latter was requested to answer the questions in an accciBpanying
paper. These questions were answered, and among other items of in-
formation plaintiff stated therein that its books, accounts, stocks
and securities would be inspected, audited and verified with funds
on hand or in bank, **at least once every month."
DeceKiber K;, 1914, as the first year of the bond was
Hearing a close, defendant issued a notice of exi'iration to plain-
tiff, and en receipt thereof and as a consideration for the con-
tinuance of the bond plaintiff sent defendant t^e nesassary presdtiai
^;
«
■JXf
R»».
for the ensuinfi year and alsp th« following letter:
"To CAloAgo Bonding And i^urety company^
Chicago:
THI5 IS TO CSI17I9Y* That since the issuance of the
above bond Kr. Weiaa liae faithfully, honestly and punctually
accounted to me for all money and prcpert.y in -is control or
custody 89 fliy employee; has always had prcper securities and
funds on hand to balance his accounts, and is not new in de-
fault to me.
Signed*
CHAPWAK & sunn COUPARY,
B. B. orennell,
Treas, & Gen*l Ugr,
Dated Bee. 11, 1914, at Chicago, ill."
Thereupon the bond was continued in force.
The SYidenee discloses that the employee, Weiss,
had ambeszled |361.78 in August, 1914, and the balance of his
thefts occurred after the policy had been renewed as above stated.
The position of the defendant was willingness to pay the anount
takejn during the first year, but disclaiming liability for thefts
occurring after the renewal upon the ground that the renewal was
obtained by reason of the representation of plaintiff that -^^'eiss
had theretofore faithfully and honestly accounted for all moneys
in his control, etc., which representation was untrue. The trial
court was in accord with this view and directed a verdict accord-
ingly.
The question involved has been recently before this
court and deter-Gined, Whyland v. Chicago Bonding and Security Co.,
209 111. App. 485, and Autp Truck Steel Body Co. v. Chicago Bonding
and Insurance Co., 25174, opinion filed April 50, 1920. The opin-
ions and decisions in these oases ar*^ conclusive on the point be-
fore us. They both support the position of the plaintiff here and
the judf^ent of the trial court, fer. Justice Cfridley in the latter
case iaas comprehensively investigated and stated the deeisions in
point, and we refer to what is there said as well as to the opinion
in the is(hyland case as to reasons for our conclusion. »iloe Go.
^» Rpy<*l Indemnity Co ., 289 111, 383, Is also deolaiv«, '«b«r« th*
court aiild of a slfflllAr point;
"The 8tatem»»nt8 made by appellant were untru«, Ob-
vloualy, the infornttation contained in the dtatementa was of
vital importance in inducing appellee to exeoute the bond,
ijome of the atatensents must have been kno^rn by appellant to
be untrue and aa to othera, whether known by appellant to be
untrue or not, it aaaumed knowledge of the facta and can not
now allege want of knowledp.e. ( Hartford Life and Annuity Ina.
Co. V. Gray , 91 III. 159.)
llaintiff ar^ea extenaively in detail atteuspting to
ahow that Weiaa's method of eabesaleoinrit Mia akilfully concealed.
However, it appeara clearly that a proper fflonthXy checking up of
the oaah would have disoloaod a loaa, and aa aaid in the vyjlc e
case, aupra , the plaintiff "aaausied knowledge of the facta and
cannot now allege want of knowledge,"
9e do not tiilnk the record aupporto the claim that
defendant changed ita hold after auit waa brought a»d now defends
on different grounds. The letter refusing payment of the entire
amount claimed is consistent with its poaltion upon the trial,
What w« have above stated diaposea of other points
made in the brief, and for ths reasons above indicated the Judg-
ment ie affiirmed.
Holdoia, I. J,, and never, J,, concur.
175 - 25947
\
\
NBTTIK KYBZAK, \ )
Appellfe« )
80L0I10V STI^IIQIAB et'al..
Appellant^,
\
] J^-t'"'*!' ^TROM CIKCUIT COURT
) / OF COOK COUKTY.
219I.A. 646
im, JUSTICE KoSlfl^lSLY D3SLIVKRED THB Oi'IHION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiff, bringing auit to recover compensation
for pereonnl injuries alleged to have been Inflicted by de-
fendant's autoffiobile* had judro&ent for $750, frcm which de-
fendant appeals. The declaration was originally in five counts,
but subsequently all except the first ocunt were eliminated.
This alleged general neglij^rent operation of the automobile and
was sufficient to state a eause of action, ClriicRgo city Railway
Co, V. JennintsS , 157 111, 274; Chicago City Ra 11 way Co . v. lural ,
224 111. 324. criticiam of the inartificial character of the
declaration is net unportant, as all intendments favcr the dec-
laration after verdict. Buck v. Citizens 0^. ^, £., <i54 111, 198;
Humaeon v. Michigan Central H. H, Co,, -i69 111. 462. Insufficiency
in form cf a declaration cannot be {.resented after verdict, 111 1-
noie Steel Co. v, atonevick , 199 III. 122,
While there is some dispute as tc the facts of the
occurrence, the Jury properly cculd believe that on the evening
in question, September 13, 1916, plaintiff had alighted from a
southbound street oar running on Ashland avenue, in Chicago, in
the west track, wiiich stopped at the north crossing at prie street,
which runs east and west; that she passed to the rear of the oar,
crossing the southbound track and into the space between the
southbound track and the northbound track and then observed the
automobile of the defendant moving in a northerly direction about
forty feci »way. running with one whetl east of the east rail of
the northbound track and going at the rate of twenty-fiye or
thirty miles an hour; that she waited for it to pass whwrj, as
it appeared to her, it suddenly swerred frcsi its straight course
OTer to the left and in a westerly direction, striking plaintiff
and injuring her. Under these circumstances the Jury rightly
could conclude that the accident vms caused hy the negligent
Operation of the automobile both frith respect to speed and its
sudden chiinge of direction towards plaintiff, and also that at
this tiae plaintiff «as ^ceroiaing due and proper caution for
her safety.
It is strenuously argued that the driTer of the
autortubile at this tiioe was not driving it as an agent of the
defendant but eclely upon sn errand personal to himself. The
evidence presented on this joint was that the car was driven by
one Trock, an ercploye cf the defendant; that he was aocustoned
to using and driving the car. having driven it five or six times
before this; t]riat defendant is a mesKber of the fine of steinmaa
Brothers, e copartnership, and that upon the evening in question
a mnnufacturer by the name of Priedxaan had been interviewing this
concern upon some business; that when he left than 7rook under-
took to carry Priedaan and also a Mr. Turbin, who had business
relations witti defendant's concern, down town and then to return
with the car to defendant, who was waiting for the automobile at
his place of business. The accident happened on the return trip,
We cannot say that the Jury was not justified in believing that
this trip was not a personal one by Trook, but was iriade as the
agent for defendant and for the purpose cf ocnveying these two
laea vftio had business relations with the defendant's firm,
R<pinick v, ametana, 205 III, App, 321.
Th« OT/nersiiip of the automcbll* waa denied by apecial
plea. There le in evidence »n adaiieeion by the defendant of owner*
ship and alto a atat^ent as tc Troek being a good ctiaiiffeur. The
credibility of the witneea teetifying to this ad^dasion is strongly
attacked, but ee cannot say the Jury should not htvte bolioTed it.
It ia said that certain letters ^Khicii adxiiitted o,wner-
ship and control of the automobile were imprcperly admilted in evi-
dence because their authorship was not shown. The attorney for
plaintiff wrote to the fim to which defendant belongs, advising
then of this accident and suggesting settleRient. This letter was
properly stanped and sailed. In due time the attorney received
back through the United States mail his letter* with a co^ffinunioa-
tien referring to his letter written upon the lower part of the
letter 8heet« This was signed by thP firm name, this was suffi-
cien . to raise a presumption that it was written and 3«nt by de-
fendant's firm and it was proper for the jury tc consider it. It
was also proper to present tc the Jur:"/ the other letter wMoh pur-
ported to have been written and signed by Steinman Bros., for it
refers to a previous letter and to the subject matter under con-
sideration,
llaintiff received contusions on her body generally
and suffered much pain and was prevented from attending to her work
for seme time. We cannot say that the award of :^75() was excessive,
This court should not overrule the verdict of the jury
unless such verdict is manifestly against the great «»r weight of ths
evidence. As ws cannot say this in the present case ana as no re-
versible errors occurred upon the trial, the judr,ment is affirmed,
A77II».SI>.
Holdora, i, J,, and Dever, J,, concur.
■rttt
184 * 25956
i
Apueller, J
\ . ) / OF CtKiK COUUTY,
JOiiKI-H J. IJAVIS, \
Appellant.
219 lA. 646
VH. JUSTICE ll«8UJ(ELY BJELIVEMEC THE 01X)*I0K OK TH? COimT,
Tbis i« ftn «|>p«iftl by tho defendant froei a judr^icot
for $2691.14 AgRinat hioi in an action of tr«iipHa» uxi the ease.
Ilftintlff *• declaration all€>ged that on or about
SeptcMtoar 24* 1913, she pl^oad wltii defandiant for aaf« keeping
13200 in money upon the promlte that he vould koep thfi same
for her until tihe requested its return; that he afterwards re-
turned to plaintiff $50 and no r>ore; that en or about :.ctcb«r
15« 1914, she deoiHfided froat defendant the return of the balance
of said Kicney; that he refused to return the suae or any part
thereof, but wrongfully and unlawfully kept and converted the
aMse to liie otm use. Defendant fxled a plea of not guilty and
two special pleas, but no eviuenee was presented to auyport the
epecial pleas. The verdict cf the jury was for the plaintiff
in the su» of $2691.14, of whioh $541.14 represents interest.
I'laintiff »8 story substantially was that defendant
had been the physician for J, r. aebree, her husband, for a
nufflber of yeara and she had known hlaj for ten years jrior to
the occasion in question; that for ten weeks prior thereto sha
hmA been under defendant's treatBient for dental work; that she
was in a very nervous oondition and confined tc hf^r bed; that
her husband was ill and had been for several months; that Hoy,
Ur. debree's son by a fonoer marriage, was about the house ocniidfflr«
ably during this tiaa, and that she feared ha night take acote of
\
li€<r
h*%m4in-
h«r acney and J«-*«lry; that upon the oocaaion of one of .he de-
fendant*^ professional viait* to her in 3eptera"ber, 1913, at her
heme, Bhe informed hio Vtoy haid been drinking >md she wlahed the
e
defendant to take her acney, 9Aiounting to |22Cv'?, and keep it for
her and aleo her dlanonda and h»»r revolver; that defendant re-
fused Lc iako the dioeicnds but agreed to takr the other thini;'*;
thereuron she delivered tc him currency asicuntinf; to $Z2oo to
be kept by defendant, ^er hur; that thia was in the presence of
her Bi&id, Elisabeth lioCebe; tiiat defendant took it and said he
would keep it for her; she thereupon ask«»d defen'lant if he trould
not put thia in writing and defendant vent to a desk in the reoM
and at plaintiff's diet* lion vrrot« the following:
•If anything ahould happen to me hand the enclosed
12200 to Hr, J. K, aebree, as 1 don't wish my relatives to
have it,"
that plaintiff tuon signed h.r uaaie, "Mrs. J, , ijebree, under
the ^n'iting, ^/hereupon defendant took the yrriting and rolled it
up with the ourrency and pl»oed it in hia pocket, saying in sub-
stauos that he ^ould take it and put it in iiis safety deposit
vault and in a day or so vhsn plaintiff was able to go uowntowa
he would get a box for her and put the money atrny. The testiaiony
or the nald cerroborat'S IuIb story.
That defendant received some money upon this oec«-
sion is not uisputed; the oontention is as to tne amount, lie
olalj»«d he received only %X00 and that he returned this to plain-
tiff in two paycj^nts shortly Hfter the deatii of J. .?< , bebrse,
wiach occurred en soveober 17, 1913,
the testiajony of plaintiff is vigorously attacked
and alleged inconaieteneies and contradictions are marahalled
in order to discredit her story. T© note these would make tlils
opinion entirely too long, iluoh discrepancies do not necessarily
prove the untruthfulness of the essential points in her testiraony,
.soidcf
It is axiorostic t.H«t prrat »BJ0©t,hB«8a In a nasrrative may be on«
of the ennrkB of itu fnbrleatlon. The jury could properly b« af
th« opinien that th'? diserapanoleB ?r«re no m©r» than the normal
uncertainties as to attending details of the ooourreno«« and ^lioh
wera indices of the truth of the vltel point cf the story.
Testiaony tending to show mental derangement of the
plaintiff at the tiEc of ti-.ie eccurrenoe was pcitea hy eereral wlt«
neeaee. it ires aaid eht vree suffering from insane delusions and
from Rleohcliscn. It was conceded that seme two i^onths or njore
ftftfr thf delivery of the money to defendant plfcfintiff *)a» com-
rritt*d to thft ineane asylum at Kankakee. The petition for the
inquest Intc her sanity was eiftned by defendant, iiho went to
Kankakee Dec«Dber 17, 191?, '■•nd returned to Chica^iro June ii2, I'alA,
end vma offieielly discharged «s recovered Bepteaiber 24, 1914,
The jury might well heve tho\»Kht that these a*verse witnesses wera
biaeed «rd hoatlle tc the pleljitiff, {>ne of t^uch witceeses was lh%
cy Lftbrce ebove referred to, between whoirj and the plaintiff thera
exi^5ted mutual distrust. H« eeems t© have been tt factor in insti-
^atinj- the inquest of lunacy. Kc paid defendant ^1C( for his ser-
Ticcs in thie Ratter. His testimony indicates violent antagortis*
to plaintiff. It was peculiarly the province of the Jury to weigh
all such Matters and it could properly co«e to the conclusion that
while plaintiff may have suffered in soae respects from i/apairad
aental f?tcult;es, yet she- was worthy of belief on the crucial fa«t
as tc the aRirunt of money she gave tc defendant,
defendant also arguee that plaintiff* s story is dis-
proved by writings signed by her, Tiefcrence is mrd% tc n paper
. urporting te have bean signed by plaintiff at the ti«e defendant
returned her $50, whioh paper purport u to read that r>e««njber 4,
1915, plaintiff received of )yv, uavla $50 *©n aeccunt of |l' y.»
The body of this receipt is m defendant's cv,a writing and ttas
'I
•ignaturtt by plaintiff thereto is not denied. It ^as argued to
the Jury, with oonaiderftbla bnals In the docuKftnt itself, that the
words "of |loo* wer« inserted In tri*? receipt aftor it Jiad beon
signed by plaintiff.
Dofendant aloe produced e 'srittan pap&r ijhicii iie
clained w«» (but whioh v«0 d«mied by i laintlff tc be) tho original
writing or receipt sacecuted by d«>ff»R(iPnt et the time he r^ceivad
th« money froa plaintiff, whioh read that tluj doferidant iiad re-
ceived lilOO for eafe kcersing, ln«p<»ctlon of the photographic copy
in th« record diecloeea cfinei^ernbie r^^aaon for the olalm that an
erasure is shown at the place 'vhore the figures ftlto app«jar and
also that these fifjures bejrinnlng the second I in p. of the writing
are indented farther than th* first or t^-lrd linos, ?rct« the
physical appearance of tiilB doouiaent we cannot oay tnat the jury
should not haTe been of the o] in ion thet the amcuat originally
written therein hAd been erased nnd the figures |.1C0 inserted in-
stead. There is also force In the suggest ion thnt iflfhen the denjand
was mnde upon defendant, for the balence of her nomyy in aoocrdane*
with plaintiff's version »8 tc the amount, defendant did not meet
this by producing tnis paper puri^orting to be his receipt for $1C0,
There is nothing important involved in the nanner of
the demand made by pleintlff upon defendant for the return of ner
■oney; it was first made orally, she then made a final written ue-
mand and the original was loft with deferuiant. l-pon the trial he
was unable to produce t^io. but did produce what purported tc be a
typewrittffli copy of it showing a derrand for only $2100,
•^hla court has repeat«»aiy said that we will not set
aside a verdict of a J«ry unless it la clearly and aianifestly
against the weight of the evidence, aiawons v. cowtuonwealth i';di son
Co., 203 111, App. 367; it one v. x>nk Bros,, 199 111. App, 64, and a
l>««gUCa.
yt.
'ii
large nunh^r cf other e;%9')B. ?«« *3pfrci»»lly like ^h?»t yaa said
by Kr. JuatioG ^alkw in Blehoj * ▼, Fussji, 69 IT). 4(3;
•The a'jrello'te court nei-^her sc^s ncr honrp the
vltnesa«t t<»ttlfy, .»nd only sees Ua» QVidfmco on paper, lAi&v
It all appears f»l lk», *^fce fYidercft of fl v/itoeao whom nc one»
• eeing and hearing/, testify en th^^ etand, V70uld believe, when
hi* eridenoe ia reduo*=>i to vriting msy 'iprrf'nr ^h ccnsjstrnt
and truthful as that of a witness cf the niost undoubted truth
and integrity, pro© these oonBt;?#»rRtion« it is uprrrent that
«e should be cautious in the exercise of U\e power, conferred
upon us by the Mtatut*^ t.f^ r*»verB» b»oPus*» the finding is
not suprcrted by the testiiaony.
In all avrh owp^S th«» rri* sumption ia, th?t the jury
have donp their duty and found correctly; th«t th<? judge try-
inf thff cBan, ?»n<^. bf»inp ir p ro»itien to d??t, *»rr/irip txccurHtrly
whether the finding is right, and acting under the responsl-
"bJllty of hlB Tlr'ce, lipa '1*»terv infd ct^rr-^ctly in overruling
the rr»otion for a new trial. These preeuf:pticns being in fa-
vor of the finr^in-/, ^"W "IwavB fepl reJuct^i-nt ir- int-f ri'^irinj;,
I^or can we adept a rule that mere numbers of witnesses should
deterr^inR thf^ <;ufttic!n. kll irow tnyt tx^ere nre eoid<? r/it-
nesaes who testify consistently, yet there ia that in their
rjnnnf^r rrhich iE-pnira th?r fyrce, if it dot-e ret -'/hclly dc^stroy
thoir testimony, of these things we can not Jud^e, because
we do not havo th<' mfeana.
^« <.»»'jChe jury J|udg<:? of the manner and appearance
of witneasee en the 3ten'3, 'heir Et'rrcunoinga, their inter-
est, their prejudice and feelings manifested in the case,
none of v.iich dr wc see. Ve Euet, tiv-vref ere, leave the
()uestioa of credibility and the worth of evidenos where the
law hrs vl»c«^d it, vith the Jury, and decline tc dicturb the
finding in this case,"
And in Am er loan ^:xpre3S Co. v. Stuart , li)4 ill. 3V0,
it was said that this court should not reverse unless the verdict
wfeB clearly and manifestly against the evidence, oven "if sitting
as jurors .fe might have reached a different conclusion than that
of the jury." In Butl er v. ^ iftittegmn , 196 III. App. S2c, the
words, "clearly and Kanif<»atly* were eaphasised in their appli-
cation tc the weight of the evidence. These propositions havs
been many times repeated xn a large nuiaber of oases in this atate,
Givin^s careful consideration to the record and tne ar^^iments of
counsel, we are onnble to say that the credenoe given by the Jury
to plaintiff's state»ent as to the amount of money she delivered
to defendant was ifaprcper as being clearly and manifestly against
the weight of the evidence, and we therefors have no reason in law
to reverss upon the facts.
Th«r« w»s no reTrr»ible error in tiie rulings of the
court upon the evidence truohing the mental condition of ylain-
tiff . ihe waa not adjudged inenno until some tij»e after tho oc-
currence in question, and must in law bo presimed to bo sane until
adjudged otherwise. Yitcorob v. Vantyle . 04 111. 571; C. H, I). Ry .
Co . y. rills , 91 111. 39, and in civil actions one alleging insanity
has the burden of watabllshing it, Austin v. Auatin , 260 111, 299,
Sren the insanity of a witnesa does not necessarily entirely destroy
the YRlue of the weight of Jiila testiiuony, and the jury was properly
instructed that it snould consider the insanity as determining the
value of plaintiff's testimony. It was for the jury to determine
what credit should be given to the testimony under the circumstancas;
Kelly T. l;eople, 29 111. 267; and a person so mentally deranged that
a cmaervator has to be appointed is not IncozBp^tent as a witness,
but hi a testimony Is to be weighed by the Jury under the usual tests,
Chami-lcn v. McCarthy . 228 111. B7; teople v. itirlKht , 256 111, 221.
There was no error in raling against the hypothetical
question subaltted'to or. H. I. Davis. It includes what the witness
saw or learned three mcnths eubeequfnt tc the date of the occurrence
and ^loh was not testified to. It contained elements having no basis
in the record and did not call for a conclusion to a reasonable de-
gree of certainty.
Coaplaint is made that plaintiff was permitted in the
presence cf the jury tc »ign her naaie for the purpose of permitting
the jury to ooaipare this signature with other writings. The oases
holding thlB objectionable arose before the enaotment of the statute
of 1915, Chap, bl, sec. 52, which provides that handwriting aay be
proved by comparison by the witness or by the jurv with writings
•proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the court." The signa-
ture was evidently proved to be genuine tc the satisfaction of the
trial court and was under the statute admissible. 3uoh signatures
VI
are not nec«8»&rily incompetent vhen £jad« yos t Xite^ laotaa .
It ie argued that the plaintiff having signed the
receipt for fifty dollars en acocunt c»rinot be Allowed tc questioa
it, fend ••peciaXly thP ijcrde cltti«if-d to haye been subsequently
added. The occuiaents whion were questionc^d vere uubmittcd to the
Jury and it was fcr therr to deterrin?* vyhether or not there had
been alteration. As wtrs said in H&yfe s v. yagner , i2o IJl, ii&6,
•The (question whether there hns been an alteration in &. contract
and the Intant with which it has been made are questions for tha
jury to detpnrine frojr. all the circuoistances."
Other points and alleged errors upon the trial are
not cf a nature to require a reTereal. upon the entire record
no sufficient reason has been preserited requiring a reversal,
and the J advent is therefore affirmed.
AffZBMKD.
Hcldc:::., I. J., andT DeTer* J», ocncur.
T8.
198 - 25970
JOSKJrH MCCARTHY. \ )
Appel|.e«, )
j fkh-mh FROM MmilCIi'AL COUEf
/
> / OF CHICAGO .
KLBAMOR H. B. MKY}«3li|, )/
Appellant, )/
219I.A. 647
MR. JUSTICE McSimSLY DELIVERED THS OPINION OP 'Smi COUt^T.
Defendant has appealed from a Judgment taid to be
for ^1893 entered against hint in a suit tried by the court to
recover compensation for certain improreiawiti made by plaintiff
for defendant on a hotel building in Chicago.
This Jud^jsent should be affirmed because we are bot
informed by the abstract as tc the statem&it of claim, affidavit
of defense or the judgment. Ho attempt is made to abstract the
statutory or coauoon law record. The failure of the abstract to
present the issues or the jud^ent has been repeatedly held suf-
ficient grounds fOr affirioance. Bishop v, Loewus, 63 111, App.
351; Dean e v. Michigan strve Co., 69 111, App, 106; Slia v.
Societa K. 3. di i,. £, , 203 111. ^p. i<i78. The Appellate court
will not examine the transcript of the record to search for grounds
for reversal. Love v. Dick , 177 111, App, 98; Kieshkowski v.
Bo Strom , 179 111, App, 73.
There is also basis for the olairc of counsel for
plaintiff that the abstract is entirely incomplete; many pages
of the record and exhibits being omitted,
We gather frsai the argument that the case hinged upon
the identification of the final contract between the parties,
Ihile we are not obligated to do so, we have examined the record
sufficiently to be of the opinion that the trial court was right
in finding that the contract testified to by the plaintiff v/as
iQ.
-tac, y:
*1i
.tn V'
•:-'nr'tT«''^ 'Z'i'
:ut r.ji
'i.tSO?
10 5
the real contract.
The secondary evidence as to the contract was properly
admitted* ae the defendant, who had pOBBesslon of the original,
admitted that it waa either lost cr destroyed.
There is aozae suggestion made as tc lack of eTi-
dence of perf ornjance. We think it sufficiently appears that all
of the work called for by the contract was properly perforaied ex-
cept the instftllaticn of four lavatories* and tifxat plaintiff waa
justified in refusing tc install these because of the failure of
defendant to oake pa^/ment within the time provided by the con-
tract. Defendant was repeat«*dly requested to make payaient as
had been agreed upon, but refused to dc so, and plaintiff was not
required xn face of sucii refusal to put more mctiey, tixee and
material into the building.
The finding of the court made due allowance for the
four lavatories not installed, and if there were any errors in
the computation, as claimed, such errors are not pointed out,
For reason cf the faulty abstract and upon the
loerita, the jud/Tment is affirmed.
fioldOQi, J, J,, and Dever, J,, concur.
Hfi
2X9 - 25991
A.
ISLLIl^ HUYLJ5K. \
)l?ARGAHKT A. >^ARTIK, dS^ing )
bueinesB qs ^artln Aut^ i ivery.
Appellant, \
AL ?ROK CIRCUIT GCUHT
OP COOK COUNTY.
219 i.A- 647
MR. JU3T1CT? MCSUB^SLY DSLIVERITD TlIE 01-INIOK OP THE COimT,
Plaintiff brought suit, uTlej»ing that she mwi» in-
jured while R pa9aen(:;f-r for hire in an ftutcmoblle or taxi oab
operated hy defendant. Upon trial she had a verdict and .1udg»
raent for |5C0, Defendant argues here for reTereal on the ground
of non-liability and prejudicial errore during trial,
Defendant operates an autc liTery business. Upon
the dav of the accident, January 26, 1916, plaintiff telephoned
tc defendant's place of business and ordered a taxi cab c^ent to
her place of erapl^yment . She testified that thp re ly was the
cab would be there at the hour named, at whic:i time the taxi
called for her, the chauffeur i^nnouncing his arrival by say&ng.
"Kartin Auto l.ivery;* that she told hi* ^ere she wanted to go
and got into the taxi cab, wiioh during the Journey ran into a
snowdrift, stopping the vehicle suddenly and throwing plaintiff
from the seat; that the chauffeur, instead of going down another
street srtiere there was less snow, drove again into the snowdrift
and she was Rf:!;ain thrown frow the seat, striking her left shoulder
against the window casing. Arriving at her destination, she told
the chauffeur she would reojit to the Martin Auto I, ivery for the
services and he acquiesced. tShe subsequently called a doctor, yrh.0
examined her and found a fractured clavicle, i-laintiff paid the
^*rfi*r{'
liartin Auto Livery toy check for the taxi cab ajrjd raccived a re-
ceipt frora defendant.
The only aub«ftantia.l v»riano« In the testioucny ie
as to the telephone conYrtrsation at th<5 time plaintiff ordered
the oab. 15arl Martin testified that he id the dcn of defendant
and einplcysd by her; that he received the telephone aieaaage froa
plaintiff* and claitoe that he then tcld plaintiff that on account
of the anew they were not running rheir taxi cabs or. jide streets
but only en carl ine streets; that they had a man in the office
who wculd jT en the sti-eet find Mire a strange cab, but plaintiff
denlfs that anything ims said about another cab and testified shs
did not know that any other auto fOoncern called for aar. These
TRrient Btcri(=a were properly submitted to the jury and we cannot
say that the credence giver to plaintiff's version was iaiproper.
r;ef«ndsnt did procure a taxi cab frca' the Juccrican
<^.7\b CoRippny to fill this order, and the witness, arl lartin, ga»s
the chauffeur of the taxi cab instructions tc call fcr plaintiff.
Under these c i re iJii stances defendant was liable fcr the injuries
to plaintiff caused by the negligence of the chauffeur. To para-
phrase what la said in tne opinion in Smith v. Devlin , 127 111.
App. 492. ^en the defendant undertook to furnish the plaintiff
a taxi cab and Bent to her a taxi oab and chauffeur, such taxi
cab and chauffeur became pro hac vice the taxi cab ana chauffeur
of defendant, l«argaret l-artin, and her duty and liability in
respect thereto were not affected by the fact that she had bcrrowsd
or hired said taxi cab and chauflfsur from the Aaerican Cab Co., fo»
the purpose of furnishing sarae to plaintiff.
Complaint is oaade of the entry into the case after
trisl had begun of wr, Kdward ?^aher, as a trial attorney for plain*
tiff, ordinarily this would b« objectionable, although in this
case only one witness had partially testified. Waen ur, U»h9t
Da
•^ 9fi9n&tir tJjio icXbo f:
did aiipear he made an off«r to interrogate the jurors 13 to
whether they knew hjjn or not, but this offer was declined and
after acme oollequy ccunsel fcr defendant v/ithdrcw i.is objec-
tion and tiae cause proce^^dnd without any objection on his port,
jPurthfTBiore, tnis point does not app^^ar in the written motion
for a new trial, Failure to SFeclfy this point was a waiver,
Jane way v. Burton, 201 111. 78.
it 10 argued than thr court ocmwitted prejijidicial
error in sustaining an objpction to defendant's offfir to prova
that the Ain«^rican Auto and Taxi Co. carried plPintiff; that thii
company i^aa in the taxi business, liiring chauffeurs, operating
cabs, and carrying passengers, and thnt defi^ndant had nothing to
do with hiring these chauffeurs and had no connection v/itti the
iUnerican Company, T-;ift competency of this ia predicated upon the
assumption tnnt the special plea denying ownership of the t-ixi
cab luade ownersiiip an issue. This is not true, hs the declara-
tion did not allefi« that defendant owned the vehicle; it alleged
operation and, in' lav/, the taxi cab was operated by the defend-
ant althougn uHh may not have owned it or hired the cxm.uffeur
generally.
It does sufficiently appear in the record tiiet the
defendant, yargaret Jart.ln, never h?id any interest in the Ameri-
can Auto Livery Co., and the character of its business was tes-
tified to by its superintendent. Plaintiff's cese is not based
upon either ovmerahip of the vehicle In question or F^nir interest
in or control by the defendant of the buain-'tSB of the AxnericJwa
Taxi Cab Co, Her case is based upon the prlncipls stated in
amith V. i)evl in , G ^ujpr a,
Inatruoticns offered on beiialf of defendant and
refused were prcperly refused. They seek improperly tc inject
the issue of ownership into tne case. It is said that other in-
ifi 1S;)iT0« M'
iii
ttit
■tructlont ar« object ionablt. but In what respect we are not
told.
Plaintiff's theory of her clain lao in nccord *lth th«
law, tne y-rdint of tha Jurv is iustified fron th«! •THance, and
the *»ilp^-*?d errors upon the trial do not require a rrr«r8al, heno«
the judntent is aff irmad.
Uoldou, i, J., and I3e7«r, j,, concur.
iiJ
33
231 - 26003
#tUaAi AHRiLKii, • mlnef, by
HJe?lFY A. AHREHa, >ii8 next
friend, \
ilppellee,
▼•. \
*1B>;R'3 LAUBDiRY, a ci»r jura-
tion, \
ApptXlani.
AFfML FHQK MUNICIPAL COURT
Oy ClilCACO.
219 i.A- S4:7
»R. JUdTICS KcSi/RJELY D«LlVlHSj> THB O^IKIGH OP THE CCURT.
VillifUB Ahrene, a minor, by yJLa next friend, in an
action in tort for damages resultinf from the bite of a dog al-
leged to belong tc and to bs in the posaeesion of the defendant,
upon trial by a Jury had a verdict and JudRcent for $275. The de-
fendant aeka that the Judgment be reversed.
It ie o«id that the court committed reversible error
in the oral instruction given to the Jury in which they were told
that two persons, Henry Klein and Jacob '^eber, who had been loada
defendants, were diamisaed froi& the case, leaving the weber*8
Laundry as the sole defendant; and it ia argued tiiat from this
the jury might infer that the defendant corporation was kept in
the case because the court deemed it guilty. The instruction
does not bear thia interpretation; it only tcld the Jury that
the case had been dia'&issed as to Klein and weber as individuals
beoauae there waa no evidence that the dog in queation waa in the
poaaeaaion of either one of then, but that there waa some evidenes
•perhapa* touching the question aa to whether the dofi *»• A** ^^*
poaaeaaion or control of the company. Thia was not the expression
of any opinion as to the fj'cts, but was simply the statement that
there was some evidence on this question, w/iieh the Jury already
knew. The instruction Is not open to the objection that it pre-
•AW W-.
sumcB to pass upon any fact cr is bpsed upon the assumpticn of ax^
ultimate fsot.
It is said tlxat the verdict is maulfestXy against the
weight of the '•▼idence in that there ia no eYi donee that the de-
fendant possessed or controlled any dog, or that it failed to mussla
or properly manage, control and guard it, or that the defendant haA
knowledge of its Tlcioua charaoter. Ve cannot say that the jury
was not justified in returninf;; this Terdiot. In addition to the
testimony of other "vitneases. there was the definite testi/aony of
one of the eri>ployes of the defendant who had been working in the
laundry some four years; she testified as to the presence of the
dog and that she herself had been bitten by it. Henry Klein,
president of the defendant company, adiuitted that to his own knowl-
edge the dog had bitten three people; that sometifiieB it had a muszle
on and sometliaes not, and soffietimes had on a cnain and ether timet
was wiUiout one.
The plaintiff, who was less tixan ten years of age at
the tim? of trn? occurrence, testified that on a Sunday mcming, he
was sent by uis father, as was custcmarv, to defendant's laundry
and found the front door locked; that a man from the inside told
hiiB to go around the aide way, and when he had gone a few feet
around the side the dog jump^^d cut and bit hisj.
There is virtually no dispute as to the facts as to how
the boy received the injuries, and there was sufficient evidence of
possessicn and control of the dog by defendant, knowledge of its
character and that it was unmusailed and unchained, to justify the
jury in its conclusion.
There is no sufficient reason for a reversal and the
Judgment is affirmed. AjrFIRllED.
Holdoa, >, J., and Dever, J., concur.
n
la
an
255 - 26027
copprtners, ft\.
ALBVRT i;. COOK, *^
AT'PPAT FPOM MU>;lCli-AI. COURT
0? CHICAGO,
. 641
l«a. JTI3TICI MCSUKTK1.Y BKLIVERED THS Oi-IJJIOH OF THl CCrHT.
Flaintiff*, real estate brokers in Chicago, brought
suit for payment for aeryices alleged to ha1ie been rendered de-
fendant in procuring Maybelle C. Barrett to aign a written con-
tract to excnange certain of tier property for property of the
defendant upon the term* proposed by defendant, for which ser-
vices defendant agreed to pay pl^iintiffs a ocranission of 3 per
cent of the value of his property of $200,000, amounting to
$6,0(0. upon trial by the court judi^tcnt was entered against
defendant for tiiis aaount, from whion he appeals,
aea|.eotive counsel have discussed at seme length,
with nuiberous citations, the question of the legal relictions
between a broker and principal and the oircuiastances under which
a broker is entitled to a commission. There is virtually no dis-
pute as tc the legal principles involved. In our opinion this
case turns upon the facts presented by the evidence.
^ith reference to the suggestion by plaintiffs'
counsel that as no propositions of law Wfre submitted to the
trial court, such questions cannot be raised in this court, it
has been held that this is not the nile in the App'.'llnte courts,
-City of Chicago v. Bar tela , 146 111. App. 180; lanak i v. Chicago h
gorth Vestcrii K^. C£., 181 111 . App, 565; Pducaticnal Aid society
V, Bush Tecur-le ConBcrvatory , 187 111. App. 250; Bradish v. Yocxw ,
130 III. 366.
84
JiMkm
«8I
«l
.6..
The testifflony wa» presented by four witneeaea, two
for t^aoh aide. In the fall of 1918 Ben Wilson, an appnt for
plaintiff u, disouaeed ii4th defendant the exchange of property
owned lay defendant in Omaha for property owned by raybelle Clary
Barrett in Georgia, The following year thia was again diecuBsed
and in July, ISlt, defendant agreed, if fileon would obtain a
conditional contract signed by »fr, and Mrs. Barrett, to trade
their Ball plantation in Georgia, subject to a $&5,0U0 laortgage,
for defendant's Otualjia building, subject also to a $55,0(0 mortgags;
that ;>rtf.>r the Barretts had f^one tc omaha and inspected defendant's
builvling and iU should be acceptable tc th^i, the defendant would
then go to Georgia and ex^aslne tne plantation to ascertain whether
the trade would be acceptable to hin. Defendant says he then told
Wilscn he rould vmnt his superintendent, j, 3, Jtaton, to gc south
with thejB for the purpose of Inep^^otinfe the Georgia land. Wilson
testified that at thia tirae, in answer to an inquiry, he told de-
fendant that in case the trade was consuoimated MoKey & loague
would charge defendant the T?e«l Kstate B«ard rates of ooBunission
for their services as brokers. i:'urBuant to this, on August 1,
1919, ft conditional contract looking to the exchange of the
properties was signed by the tiefendant and by J/rs. Barrett, sub-
ject m the inspection and approval of the propertlfts by the res-
pective owners, the Barretts went to emaha and inspected defend-
snt»a property and indicated their satisfaction with it. soma
weeks afterwards defenaant, kr. Wilson and l^r. Barrett left Chi-
cago for Georgia on the trip of inspection, liX , Staton joined
the party and Jilson was told that ijtaton ^me to inspect the
propRTty for defendant and to advise him in the matter. Some
three or four days were spent insp<=^ctinti the Ball plantation and
»lse another plantation owned by Krs. Barrett. The party returned
to Chicago about Septeoiber Ist and some days latsr Wilson called
tJi
:-iia ■«-<
•9 aitiki
upon defendant and was told by defendant he had Kude uf hie mind
not to make the trade. Wilecn says that afterv»arde, about ijeptera-
ber I6th, he called upon defendant and was tcld by hljn that he
would trade if Irre. Barrett would put in the other plantation with
the Ball plantation, subject tc a ^75,000 mortgage and take the
Omaha building subject tc a S75,00C luortgage; that aubseQuently
he secured the ccneent of the Barretts tc thle iroj-oaition and a
contract to this effect was drawn by plaintiff a and presented to
defendant for signature, but that after holding it for some time
defendant refused to »ign.
Defendant's version of this latter ccnversation is
tb9t he informed -aril son that Stnton bad an int^rest in the {aiah*
property tc tho amcunt of 025, CCC and that Staton was opposed to the
trade; that defendant finally said in aubstr.nce he vfould leave th«
matter to Mr. ataton and that if 3tatcn was willing tc put his
mocey m as a upt^ulnticn in the Gsorgia lands and was willing to
manage their sale, defendant would consider it; that to another
agent oalling from the pl»intiff s. hft said th'^t he .Tould refer the
matter to jtaton; that subaequcntly wh,en Wilson presented the form
of contract incorporating the new deal tc defendant for execution,
defendant said he could not sign it until 3taton hod passed upon
and approved it, later Wilson called upon defendant with a letter
to Staton waich Wilson had prepared and asked defencant to sign,
but defendant refused, but prepared a letter of nis own dictation
directed tc ritaton. which he signed and gave to tilson to be pre-
sented to Btaton. Wilson says ho did not irrmine to see Staton,
but said that he would think about it, and after talking It over
with one of his associates he decided not to see Staton. This
letter was ruled out as incompetent by the trial court, but for
reasons indicated hrreaft^r we think it was ccajpetent and material.
Jti'
f.«5l-
It is «• follows:
♦'September 27. 1919,
Jr. J. 3, Staton,
K&iikak«e« Illinoia.
Dear ^r. iitaton:
Tixe boar^r of this letter, rr. Wilson, whom you hava
met, ciesirea to oorivtrae with ycu on the transfer proposed of
the Gfijaha iiuildirii, for Uie Bftll Ranch and Greenfield Hoyston
ranch, resi ective properties clear and free from all inouBibrancs,
excepting; and aarne morti;afees at-,£,rei>&ting f!75,r.(iO.OO each. So
far as incumbrances are concerned this itee is equal on ooth
properties referred to,
l,r, Viilson figures that he has aecured a wcaderful
opportunity for you to invest your int rest in the Qtcnhm build-
ing, nnd also feels that even though the development idea wiiioh
you and I liave diacuaaed 30 thorcu^vhly be not even entertained,
the ch»noea tc secure the greatest ar.ount of revenue be in fftvor
of the two ranches referred to in prnf f^rence to the Omaha Build-
ing. I hnve exT'ressed myself fully to you as b<?ing of the same
opinion, nfevertheless I do not vish to Inf r that this should in
eny vrsy influence ycu cne way or the other. Your money is at
stake, and i v/ould naturally want you to be thoroughly satisfied
in your own mind ns to the benefits to be derived U^ereby. ir.
Wilson seeiiis to be very fair anc? ccnacientlous and I therefor*
feelB tnet a conference with you to more fully digest the
varirus views end opinions in so tnirrrtant a matter is in line.
J take this at»nd. knoTRxnf; firmly now you feel towards your
faaiily and your own inclineticn, therefore T am reluctant to
ever 8ug{-est in this case, other than e.tove set forth, and I
jtay add the fell owing:
If the hall Ranch be of soil suitatjle fcr live stock
purposes or pecan and peach cultivation without too nsuch fertili-
sation neoesBRryu it would see.j to me safe, cn the c'iher hand,
if It be not a fact or proven, i would still question the venture
from our partict-iar standpoint of developiricnt , iinlesu aijain veri-
fied, by you, mysslf or both of ua. With an iiupartial sentiment,
I ate now putting tuis proposition up to you for your i inal decis-
ion.
Thanking you for the courtesies in oeiialf of kr, viilson
and Mr. Barrett,
very truly yours,
(Sifr-ned) A, E, cook.*
The next joove In the matter was a contiaunicatlon freot
the attorneys of plaintiffs threatening defendant with suit unless
the ccmniission claimed was paid.
Staton's testiiBony corroborates defendant's. He says
that wtien they left for Georgia Wilson ^wss infcnned of his interest
in the inatter and that Wilson said it was up to stat on whether the
deal would go through and that he, '.Vilson, "wouldn't make a deal
under any elrcvonstances unless I was perfectly satisfied when I
looked over the property to make the deal." There is also evidence
that defendRxit and Steton had been asaociated in business aiattera
for many years; that 3taton acted as aupfTlntendent of defendant**
properties besides having an interest of his own in the tiuaha
property, and that if defendant aoouired the Georgia properties
it inyclved 3taton*s remoTal thence te handle them.
It seeif.e tc us clear that only one conclusion can be
drawn from theae fRcts» nansely, that at no time was there an un-
conditional contract betwten the principals for the exchange of
their respective properties. The deal v^as subject to the inapec-
tion and approval not only of Krs, Barrett and of the defendant,
Cocic, but al 30 cf Jtatcn, representing and advising Cook, and on
his o^vn behalf. There is scarcely any denial cf the fact that in
the first rrcpoaition the consent and approval of sitatcn was an
essential factor and a necessary condition to defendant's accep-
tance. It would therefore seea higuly improbable that defendant
would ccnaent to the second propoeition, as claiEod by i.l{<xii tiffs,
without a^ain subaiittinp it for the approval of oiatcn. Vhe let-
ter before referred to ( >€f(Rjidant'3 xhibit 2 for indentif ication)
ws tiiink clearly shows the condition of the proposed trauBaotion
at that time. It ia convincing as to the situation, and plain-
tiffs, thtcuci. their rej.rQsentntive,«rilson, were fully infonusA
as to the npccssity of securing Jtaton's approval,
fa are of ths opinion that the two letters - defendant*!
exhibits 1 and 2 - should have been received in evidence and con-
sidered by th€ court, The letter (exhibit 1; waa written by ths
defendant to t/.e attorney for plBintiffs in answer tc a dtanand for
coiruri jaiona, in Morte n v. iiarnej f» 14i ill, App. 3.ij, it was held ••
saterial under similar circuxiiot&nces txiat the recipient cf the
letter inade a dsnlal as soon as he had any intitijatiou that ths
brokers claimed he owed them a comiuiasion.
The other letter was, as we have above said, adtaissibls
-ft
as tending to throw light upon th« facta of the situation and at
aff??«ting tjti« probability or Iraprobebility of the variftnt atoriet
of th# vitnesaeB. F«opl e ▼. jyicC»nn , 247 I\l. 131; Hunter v.
Harris, 24 111, App. 64o; Black ▼, y« » 3t. h, A I. Hy. Co .. Ill
111, 561; Knapp Printing; ^ i jinding C£. v. Guthrie . 64 ill, App,
523.
The trada which wfis the subject matter of negotia*
tions never wne consumraatftd. It was the poaition of the defendnnt
and understood by plaintiffa that no tr^de oould be made or oon>
tract therefor be entered into without the approval of staton.
Such approval waa never obtained, and f>s the brokera* oomniiiisiona
were conditioned upon the ocnaiuBBi&tion of s binding contract.
they are not entitled to jud«;aient therefor.
For the reasons above indicated the J|udgHi«Rt ia re-
versed with findings of faet,
REVMISED UlTd ?IKI)INGJ^ OJ? FACT.
Holdom, 1, J., oonaurs.
Dover, j.. disaents.
255 - 26027 P THDIHGS OS' FACT,
we find as facta in this oa«« that the defendant,
cook* did not agree either expressly or impXledly to pay the
plaintiffs a oooauissitn of 5 per cent on the value of his
property of $200«000* amounting to |6,000* or any ooBmissioa
or coatpensatlon whateirer, and tixat the plaintiffs did not
procure a contraot betweer4 the defenoaat, cook, and laybelle
Clary Barrett for the excliange of her property for iroperties
of the defendant upon the t^rt^s propoaed by the defendant.
270 - 26043
?RA1^K H. BAyIb. ) /
\ )/ vUirJiAL JfiiOU EUMICIJ-AL COURT
') 0? CKICAOO.
TMJEO. iJ. W. ZUkSTBIH, / )
219 LA. 647
UK. JUSTICE «caUH>aY DEl.IVKRKD THS OtlKIOH 0? THK GOUFT.
irpon trial of a 0ult uvon a promisaory note ths
verdict of the jury m» adrfrse tc plaintiff and judrgBenv of nil
cayiiat waa entered thereon, from which plaintiff appeals. The
note in question -^'aa dated Aufrust 16» 1916« payable tl.irty day*
after dftte to the order of plaintiff, for O2.or*0» and wae signed
by defendant, it contained a pover of attorney tc enter judgment,
which was done, but tfubnequ'ently under order of court the Jud^ent
wat optmad and defendant was granted leave to smke defense. Judg-
ment to stand as security, upon trial the jury found in favor of
defendant.
The :^esent nots wau given in connection vi/ith transao-
tions between these parties <*hlch uave already been under conaiaera-
tion by us, in lixtt opinion in pavis v, tfolf ct kJ^. , number k;5757,
filed by this court ^arch b, ItfaO, ws gave the conflicting claias
of the parties as tc the fsots. That cnse nl sc involved a promis-
sory note Kiv®n by the defendant. Zumstein, to the plaintiff, and
ia that case also the jury found against the plaintiff.
The sole issue is a question of fact as to whether
the note was giTen as part of the purchase of Florida lend by ths
plaintiff to the defendant, or was given solely for accommodation
nnd without »'.y consideration.
The jury could properly bf.lievs that in reply to ths
induc«£.«nts made by the plaintiff to the defendant to persuade hia
to purciuise Kiore Florida land, defendant said that he was through
\M
\tSv (»,
wltii Florir^a l-^ndis «nd hsd nothing aiore to inTesL in them; that
upon the request of the plnlntlff that the defendant assist him
to aoquir* nors land \)/ al^?ning the nete« the note in question
was executed ; th'xt there 7»a3 nc consideration therefor, but that
It was given solely fcr plaintiff's ucoomEaoaation and upon ills
representation that he would take it up in ten days, as we said
in our opinion in the other oase -
''The oredlbillty of the witnesoes is virtually the
sole saatter to be ioterrnined, an i the jury v?ith its opportunity
of seeing the witnesses upon the a:nnd is smon better qualified
to pass upcn this tha*' ia a court of review, Thero in not>;iag
inherently impoBSiblw or itiprobnble in iiumstein's version of
the tranaaoticn nnd ho is aupportod by apparently dlumtcreated
witnesses whose stories arr^ ccnaxst^nt with each other and ths
circuiiiatances, v/liile a Justifiable doubt was raised «a to Biany
particulars of plaintiffs testimony. However, it is not neoes-
aary for '.his court to dcteri:'sin'5 definitely which of the ft'^i^'^i**
Is telling the truth, Utt are o.^llcd upon to detern.ine only
whether the ctvioluaion of the jury vas joianifestly against the
weight of the evidence. It .?ould unduly extend tnis opinion
to narrntf? the rasny details wAich might properly have persuaded
the jury to its conclusion. Having these in amd, together with
all the circumstances involved, we are unable to say that th«
jury clearly was in the wrong, *
The judgment by ccnfessicn rae entf^red October 17,
1916, and IRovewber 17, 1916, defendant filed his petition in sup-
port of his iootion to open up or vacate this judtTsent, J laintiff
now urges that the court was witjriout jurisdiction because the mo-
tion was not made within thirty days after entry of auch judgment,
under section 21 of ciiapter 37, Illinois statute. This statuts
also provides tliat such a Jud^yBent ajay be vacated or set aside by
s petition setting forth the grounds for vacating; which should be
sufficient to cause the juditment to be vaoated or set aside by «
bin in equity. The petition in question set forta in detail the
tranoactions between tVje parties tending; to show that the note was
signed as an accommodation vritaout any consideration, Je hold
that the court acted properly under the statute, achmal^iauaen v,
Zukowaki . 183 ill. App. 305, Defendant was guilty of no leohes,
•» his petition was filed only thirty-one days after the date of
XV
Furthermore, plaintiff w«nt to trial upon the issue
formoci by the petition aftpr the juafjment had been opened up. He
thus wfiived any nni all objection to the auffioienoy of the pe-
tition. Lock a V. a rs il o ^ . 179 111. App, 1; arttnj Hftcific i jot el
Co . V. : inkerto n» iJ17 111, 61,
The burden of pleiintlff 'a brief seeraa to be the
alleged Kleconduct of the attcrn«?y representing defendant.
We hftv*- examined theae complninte and whil* it is evidifant the
c«se w»8 sharply tried and apparently iwith nomti feeling between
oprcfflnf: nttcmeye, we find nothing ^rhich would warrant a revereal
on this ground.
Objection wao aiBde to instruotlona given by the court,
but it is not made tr appear that the errcre in this reepftct, if
any, are of sufficient importance tc require a revereal.
From a consideration of the record it is not i^oasible
for us tc aay that* the verdict of the jury ^'as clearly apainst the
welfTint of the evidence, and the Judgment will be affirmed,
A??IRMRI),
Hcldom, }', ,1,, and ^^ever, J,, concur.
-^Wj
294 > 26066 '
\
SUSIE KO ARTHUR,
)(kppellee,
V.
V8. \
APPFAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT
OF COOK COUNTY,
CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY .COl
and CHICAGO RAII//AYS COjKPAllY,
impleaded with t^e CIMf OF CHICAGO, jOlOTA (l4R
MR. JUSTICE IS03URSLY DELIVERED THE OPINIOK OF THE COURT.
Plaintiff brought suit to recover compensation for
personal injuries. Upon trial a verdict was returned finding
the City of Chicago not guilty, the other defendants guilty,
plaintiff *8 damages aseessed at $1250 and Judgment for this
amount entered, from which the street car ccmpanies, hereinafter
called defendants, have appealed.
The gist of the declaration was that plaintiff vat
a pasaenger on one of the street cars of defendants October 8,
1917; that in stopping the car to permit plaintiff to alight
from the rear platform it was negligently stopped with the rear
platform opposite a manhole from which the cover was missing,
the supporting rim beneath it having become worn, rusted and
decayed; that although plaintiff was in the exercise of due
care, she unavoidably stepped into the opening of the manhole
and was thrown down and injured.
There is virtually no dispute as to the facts.
State street in Chicago runs north and south and is intersected
at right angles by 63rd and 64th streets, 63rd street being the
most northerly. At the time of the accident it was the custom
to stop cars to receive or discharge passengers at the near
crossing of street intersections. About ten o'clock in tJrie
evening plaintiff was a passenger on a southbound State street caj?;
as it approached 64th street she indicated by pressing a button
saoss:
TH..
■iU
,^ni?EUL
' ru-4fii-
tan
91
«9
^••ti'
that she desired to leave the car at that street. The ear stopped
on the north side of 64th street at Its regular stopping place, and
plaintiff, with a fri«Bd, was the first of tha tvo to attempt to
get off after i^he conductor had opened the side dror to permit thoa
to alight, irlaintiff stepped frcm the platform to the step of the
car ana tnen stepped down, and her left fcot went into the uncoyerad
manhole, the leg entering as far as her hip. There was evidence
that the cover was down in the bottom of the hcle, the reason be-
ing that the iron rim of the manhole wl^iich supported the cover
was eaten off with rust so that about half of it was gone.
"Ilhile a street railway company may not be resi^onsiblt
for the condition of the street, unless it be between or in the
immediate vicinity of its tracks, yet it will be liable to a
passenger injured without nis own fault, in consequence of
stopping its car for the passenger to alight at an improper or
dangerous place, especially where no warning of the danger is
given tc the passenger," (Thompson on negligence, vcl. 5,
section 3525.)
This rule is well established. West Chicago St. K;R.
Co . V. Buckley , 102 111 . App, 314; Slocum v. leoria Ry . Co., 179
111. App. 317, and many other cases. Defendants seera to concede
this to be the rule, but assert that in tne instant case there must
also be proof that defendants knew the manhole was open, or that it
had been open such a length of time that in the exercise of reason-
able care they should have known it. It was not necessary to sup-
port the charge of negligence to shovy the length of tixae the man-
hole had been open; it was sufficient to show it had fallen into
auch a state of disrepair through gradual rust and decay that it
had become unsafe as a landing place. The rusty condition of the
rim must have existed for soma considerable length of time befort
the cover fell into the manhole. Reasonable care dees not ae«i, as
•teicingly assumed, that every time a street car of defendants
•tops at a street crossing the conductor or motorman should first
alight and examine carefully street paving and manholes in the
-■vi'*-
vioinity before per.'citting the passengers to alight. The jury
might properly conclude tnat at least some inspection at intervals
should be made in the exercise of care for the safety of passengers.
In the present case a slis^ht examination of the condition of the
manhole would have disclosed that it was dangerous to alighting
passengers. This could have been avoided 'bj instructions that the
car should stop elsewhere. To be urtiolly indifferent to such condi-
tions is hardly consistent with the duty of exercising the highest
degree of care and caution for the safety of passengers, which is
the degree of care the law demands, Thompson on Negligence, vol, 3,
section 3475; Appel v. A, G. at, i. T. Co ., 2o7 111, App. 563. We
see no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the jury as to the
negligence of the def enctants,
Ilaintiff was not guilty of contributory negli^^ence.
This was not her customnry place of alighting, as she had intended
to stop at 63rd street but was carried a block farther. It was a
dark and misty night, and while it was true that tue ligute cf the
car were burning arfd there was an electric light in the rear vesti-
bule, these would only serve to make indistinct the condition of
the street v/here she was alighting. It is well known that a per-
son coEiing from a brigbtly lighted room is momentarily blinded when
stepping into darkness. The question of plaintiff's conduct was
properly left to the Jury rnd its conclusion en this point will not
be distui'bed.
It cannot be said that the aY«rd of $1250 is so ex-
cessive as to require a reversal, plaintiff's left leg was bruised
from the knee tc the hip, also her left arm; she complained also of
pain in other parts of her body, and it is claimed that there is a
large hole in tue leg. She used crutches for some txme and claimed
she was still suffering at the time of the trial, iSlhile the amount
r^s •
of the award may be large, the injuries are such that we could
have no proper basis for concluding they are so exceeaive as to
be disproportionate ta the injuries.
i'or the reasons above indicated the judgment is
affirmed,
Apy IRKED.
Holdook, 1, J,, and Dever« J., concur.
325 - 26097 /[
\
A. 6. Sl'KSCHJgli,
Ajppellee,
▼8,
AlrPlAL TROU KUNICIPAL COURT
WILLIAM LOaSiK, \ / Ol0^flfi4-ft
MP. JUSTICl MCSUFELY DET.IVERED THE OHKION OF THS COURT.
The defendant, in an action cf forcible detainer,
upon trial by a Jury suffered defeat and has appealed to this
court.
The defendant, a dentist, occupied the premieee in
question, a suite of offices in an office building, under m
written lease from the plaintiff. The lease provided among
other things that the offices should be used for "physician's
offices, for hli&self only" and for no other purpose. In and
by the le&se he also agreed that there should be no cooking
therein and that ho objectionable noise or odor should come
frcoi the preraises and that no stove should be installed. The
subetantial question upon the trial was as to the violation of
these conditions of the lease by the defendant, While there is
a conflict in the testoBJony, the Jury properly cculd believe
there wss coolcinp; of steak, onions and coffee, aocompanied by
the sound of frying grease and noisome odors in the offices
leased to defendant four or five times a week. The jury having
found this as a fact, there could be no question that this was a
violation of the conditions of the lease which justified its
tejrmlnation by the landlord.
By the terms cf the lease the leasee waived the
necessity of any statutory notice. Kost of the cases cited witli
reference to waiver of notice are concerned with cases of non-
payment of rent, ^/e are referred to no decision holding; that r
tenant vho has violated such conditions of his occupancy is en-
titl ed to notice where such notice has been expressly waited
in the lease.
Complaint is made of questions asked by plaintiff's
attorney, particularly some which are said tc touch upon defend-
ant's nationality and patriotism, of course such laatters had no
proper place in the trial, but axamination does not disclose
anything markedly prejudicial. At least we doubt if defendant
suffered any disadvantage* as the names of both parties would
indicate a common national antecedent.
A suggestion is made concerning the instructions,
but there is only a reference to them as general and vague, and
this does not give us sufficient basis for holding thern to be
prejudicial.
There were no reversible errors upon the trial, and
as the conclusion Of the jury was justified upon the evidenoe
the judtinent is affirmed,
ATPIRMKD.
Holdom, I-, J,, and Dever, J,, concur.
350 - 26125
Titfc tmii-ix OF tim state
Defendant in JsrroXi
T3.
FilA^K CALKIKS.
ilaintMf in
; 3RH0R TO Uhl: CRUsilliAi. GC'JRT
Oi- COOK aOUJIT\.
219I.A. 648
MR. JliUTICl liCoUI-;EL^ DiaiViHED Tliifi Oill^ION OP Th>- COUliT.
The defendant. Calkins, was charged in an indictment
with doing certain acts which directly tended to render a certain
female child of the age of sixteen years delinquent, by ravishing
and carnally knowing her. He pleaded not guilty and upon trial
was found guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment.
His motion in arrest was overruled and he was sentenced to two
months imprisonment in the House of Correction, He sued out a
writ of error from the Supreme court, alleging that the statute
under which he was tried was unconstitutional. The supreme court
held that the constitutionality of a statute was not involved,
and as this was a criminal case belcw tne grade of felony the
writ should have heen sued out of the Appellate court, and the
cause was tranaf erred to tiiis court for review, leople v.
Calkins , 291 111, 317. There ia no oill of exceptions in the
record and the evidence is not before us.
It is said the indictment is defective and insuffi-
cient. It ia substantially in the language of the statute and
charges that the defendant "did knowingly, unlawfully and willfully
do certain acts which then and tnere directly tended to render a
certain female child under the age of eighteen years, and of the
»ge of sixteen years, to-wit, one Julia Kllen jcCanney, a delinquent
child," (Chapter 38, section 42 hn. Hurd.) In absence of a motion
.:-iii£;
.joiiJoA. -
to qupsh this l9 sufficient. Under section 408 of the criminal
Code an indictment is sufficient which states the offense in the
terms and language of the statute so plainly that the n^iiture of
the offense may he easily understood by the jury; and it has been
held sufficient to charge the offense in the language of the
statute when the words of the statute so far particularize the
offense thet by tfteir use alcne the defendant is notified with
reasonable certainty of the precise offense with which he is
charged. This was the ruling on an indie traent charging indecent
liberties with a child. reo|)le t. Scattura, 238 111. 313, ^e
have also so held upon an indictnaent liJte the present one. i-eople
^' Tyavia* 2C2 111. App, 226.
Argximent is directed towards the concluding words of
the indictment as follows: "to-wit, did then and there ravish and
carnally know the said Julia Kllen McCanney contrary to the statute
and against the peace and disunity of the same leople of the state of
Illinois." These .words are superfluous, or at most are intended
only to inform the defendant and the jury of the particular acts
done by the defendant tending to contribute to the delinquency of
the girl. They are hardly sufficient to charge the crime of rape,
which is a felony. If the evidence proves the ooairjiasion of the
crime charged in the indictment, the fact that it may also prove
the elements of another crime does not make void the conviction of
the crime charged, I^eo pl e v. Karpo yic h, 28B III, 268,
The above considerations sufficiently answer other
points made by the defendant. 'He are moved to repeat what was
said in the opinion of the Supreme court in this case, su yr a, with
reference to the points made in the brief of the defendant consisting
10J
)^0««»<
IX:
tdi
meetly of assertion without elucidation.
We see no reason to reverse and the Judgment is
affiriaed.
Koldom, P. J., and :oever, ,"., ccncur.
rl^titc
b^-a-nm
ti
J
22 • 3fi^a
^msa* i'. <m-A\
2191-4, 648
SBauvnon mm mtum c^ tm cwht*
8«fca(U«t i2i trr«ir« i>«nt«l f • ismxtv^ filed « bill in
ettttitr 0«o)ci»e GnferMneBt •f a MrtaiA oont^r^et •iit«ir«d lnt«
lMt«e«a hiM a»d plisJLiitiff in ATirffirt jr«ife» K. Kmmii, •» e«Mip«B->
•Atsiy d»}iiae«ii» nak^ig also •» |iarti«a detmwAem^ ttarr A Ktmii
otmsByit * «»vf«r«.ti<m, and &ll of iia stoakhAldera. Fre«
a d«03r«e ia MKplaiiMiit* e fafftr a«M 9f tlM d«foiKi«Bta l&cva
taed mkt «HLt« odT error satdi ot^rs heem appaaiaA* Qm Mwral
oaaaa tuxva ^«n <KMis(»lida%«d f«w luarii^,
J9eoiaI.d«Humir« wtve tiXmA Iqr •a«fti <i«f«aA«at aaA
•v»rxiil«(i axoe^t aa far a« tha tiill ecxiglii apaoifie parfannaaaa
agftiaat tlia laaia«ra «t aartoitt s«ir«nta«n ah-^jraa ef th<^ staak
karaiaof taf' raferred %a* iiafaadaaia than f Had a jaiat aaaaar,
raf«r«»aa mm aai4a to a aaatar, a^tjaatioiia and axaapii«Mi %•
hia rayert «ar« •varmlad, aa4 tlia <i9«rae aoafinwd fa tiM aaia
^a f iadiaga of fact aai aaaalttaiiwi «f lair*
tim Qoatraat aa miiali tlw Mil ia ¥a8a4 io aa
faUavas
"tlULa agreaWKl vada thia 2»%h daar «f OUly,
A. i • 1915» iMtwaaa Idm P. Xomb, yart af ilia first
yart, anel Gonial ^« OHirr, party of tlia aaeind prxt,
aitnaaaatl|t
Ittiayaaa tlM partial to thia amaaMt hant
baaa far aaoy yaara Jointly interotftad ia tiM eaoAsat
aad aparatiag ef a aaohiaa mhav iMyuiiataa ia Chia««a»
e^ak Couaty, lixinaia, aaA
^HmraM oaoli «f tka yartiaa harata feaa
liavatofora oaaad aad rainra^aatad a «aa*telf (t)
iaterast ia a&$A iMOlfioaa; tmA
4«HMrt:
•3«
t« Ta»iflii» <itlMHr ferMM, «wt aO** %tt 1»ikm a •mrtifioat*
fmr «lxt^tliM« (id) tSwarma tt 8io«k to libi iMtirtsr of t]i»
first viart iMiensM «f Mwaejr loaned to %im omt^vny Vy
tiM said party «^ tlM f iy«t 9«n| moA
Wmrtamvm #icp«iw ih» 9^)^ ef the s^oMid part
IttM tt<mtlMtt«4 t« 4«T»t« bia filtlXl. «iMMPgy «ad induttrr
t« tikt »ai(l •tttvryrifl* <»r %iaaiia»»s teret«f«r« eoiditottd
mm tlM ^wiw & EaHUi SkMMUw t^«apaiqr and new e««auot««
m tbt i^wirr 4 Mamm Qmfpmnyi mtA
Vwf^mJt, ^KStmntM iam nedd »lBlXl«(t mwnAmit if
tlM sia<l yattar O^ the »«««iid part h«Vt «MitiPi)«it«d t*
tht 9iioe««» «r th« Ccmj^mut ma It is <l«Qir0ii9 «i ttot
ptat «r th« p«rtir «f tht first part that »«id party «f
tlM» aa^siid part idinli eastintia t« darata hia tlaa tmA
«>MS83r ta Urn sueoaas ^ »«i4 liu«&jiaea»
3Saw» tberafara, the faXloaiact a^!a*aaaaftt0 urm
hazatty catarad liita %gr tha portla* harata;
I.* It ia aisraad that fox the prGiiaitt« eertifieati
4tf «taak idiall Im issatad to all the p«irti«B idsa hava aclvaoaad
KOlMy ta tha v;aMpaiiy «r i3s» 'tttml» vlt tha par va^liia af aaid
a taoK, ta ait, ij^OO f«r i^Bmm*
3. It ie twetltmt nes^^^ that a» a«0B a« tha Cwpany
i« al»l« 96 ta do, ttaiit it iOmll raparohaaa fr«i tte partiaa
ahtainlng ataiA for nanaya advanoad to the ^aiipaay oitoh etoah
99 iaaiiad »i tha priaa af |80<i pair ehara aaA t«at itt a.^itioa
tharata Iho c«Mp«iy lAtaU pay ta ItSm <'• Kqimiii far hie aarrieaa
ia fiaumeiai tha Oaanaay ahmi it «a» aaoaeaary ta beta f taaaalal
aid« tha atat af foariaea lamdrad datiX-tra (0i,4Oe}, aaid pay*
»Bat«, howaYar, ta ha ia Ii«a af ««id ia fuXi af «ax dividaada
eu»B«d hy tha oiaq^aay dmriag tha yaar i915«
1^ dmaidaratian af said payaaata aad aaoltuocnta
■ado 9 tha aaid ^arty af tha first #&trt, J^tti F» XMBaa« am&»
«Lth tha purtiy i^ the »4$ooad paart thot 1m viU ohtaia aU
ata^ aatatRffiiUUig (examj^t tite tan lOKsurae aew aanad hy the
partiae barata o»ah ia his aaa aaffa, aahiag a total af twenty
iritojraa) end aiU eit^r tant th«a |s£te tha traaear^ af tha
a<avpeay «a e«a«>«tay Ga^:«t» or &&W99 thn.% same ha vaiaaaad ia
•40mX payta ta tha pariiaa hesata, tha parpaae of aeid
e«ya«aent haiag ta aaaaarafl* tha »&id p<i3rty af the aaaand
jfiar% ta davata hia ekiU ead wmtgy aad to aaiataia taAm ia»
taraat la eaid fettaiaeas aad to fiirthar aaid parpaaaa that
oa far as My he la^ai end paaaihla ««id partlae horata
iihail ha aqpiai in ^mt mA a«itroi aad iataraat ia eaid
btiaiaaaa aa aaaa aa tha paymata ehave epeeifi^d have baaa
Itaaaci oar haada aad aeal thia ssdth day af 4tely«
A« ^. i9X5,
(>ii«aod) yihn F* Kaaaa (eeal)^
(^icaad) aoMMi ^* immr (^ai)«
far auaay yoara aoiglotnftat -mKn «ad defeadaat Joha ?' •
vara partaars ia a aaofaiae a^iop haaiaaaa* la 19(yf the
>naineaa «aa iaaarporatad aader the aeana 9t umaatr ft tmrnm Wacfti a e
0<Hp&ay, httviae a oa^itai etoafc «f |8e»<W0 dirided inta 80G rtH&ree»
'..as'
-3»
•f fAiidi Murv «ai Zmm» each took 140 sharvfi, aoA mirllttr yartMrr
mmtay lie h«d Xoimed lt« and &lMMi #10,000 in liHl** AlMttt tlutt
ilaMr tbst cflffltpuny mxu t «5orf^(aljMd, ehasgtii^ it« iumbm %« ^oiGrr &
K4wni C(3«e^«iiy, tmd m^cMd i%a ^JS^itaX W ^t3«S00, ilri-ded iate
12S i^kiar«»» Itie rXd ^to<ek w;<8 tuamed in smA n^Mnlmd^ waA fttmuflfe
%9 »gr»flt » t liitY* «%»» IsfliMd to 44»ury and £afM»n 10 siuurvft oa^H
•t tti« nev c^te«k, and i» B«««&« Simmmmv X eibar* t« rsyX^M Iwf ^XA
staelE, «»$ l«t«r an a(.UUtia»«l tdiara, vfhloli ^^^ 4ttXy 9«i4t for*
'i'b* rermatniKg idtaugareft timr« left Xii ilie treasury. h&%ier 63 af tlM
tirciaMUpy** eliwr«» imrtt isiesMd t« ^^aiMm Xa ^ayinent, 4« %« el^^lasd,
of hlo Xoim of 1^300, \n% eieeoydlag to ^^Htin? «dB4 tDo «tXIe^atloiio
9t hits l>ill, mmrmly to oaoiivo imcdk jp«9aM»»t« '%iX« ttelr toetlMMiar
Xe oonfXletlJig; on tli t BuD^oet Urn atdntteo oC tlio aootXng of tkm
dlreotoro iioXd Kiagr X, X9Xi), ^lium VM ^mm&ay «ao in tliio .f InaneioX
6tr«oo «r4 tho otook of tim hmw eauteny not d»^i]o>d oorth MOiro tluoi
ptof^ Mftatoin KoMon* h% tiiot tXiOB Oitirs' w»o yvooideat ol' tlio
oMONMir, ffMwn ooar«ti«(ry and tiroAflity«r» ^iia thoy villi B»«ai« dpoRoov
6on&3tX«iii«^ tteo lioi^d of AXretstmn aa& eonsMflood all tlae etoeJOwldoro.
M tiiat MMtXacu ^t whioib lax of tliott «tro prooont, tsumn, aooofrAXng
to th« ninsies tlioroof « ^iA «fO 4o not T9g&** «s ouooooof^XXy In*
powdMHI, ro9orte4 that ^i^oaoor k^ poiA for a^id aiditiond alMuro*
Hu&t Hm oflaqMMur IumI r«c«Xvo4 ^,700 firoai a&rtaia |»«rtXes (aaiio
d«tfoiiAaaifto to tlio MXX) for tho ptw^bmm «r »toolc »i ^00 9»r ftoaro,
aad th«Lt bo had adraaood to tiM ooi^My ao a Xooa lilOO. flMnro*
nyon, »d re«it«i in tho MXiaatoot
*0a iMtioB MMlo, oo o o art loi anA oarriod^ «bo
9«oeidottt and aoovotaary ^i«»re tbovoupon editBorlaod
and dXroctod to iaauo eortlfioatoa of stooir to
Ite foXlowiiig ^eraotto Xa tSio f oX Xowtog n—mi ta,
f oaro adYaaoMi to th«^«urr S i:a»i» MadlKlao coai^a^^t
■■m
•*m
/••«ili 9* Kfltttm 2 aOsuiariMi) ^ii« Vy«d« w, Petem 8
aliitrt'0} '?mBe$M K» ^^^ii««)r 1 £}h<&r«| Jolm T, SU..nia •!
dat« of th« next awual iMettas 9jf U^ 8i(»€cMu»ldei>«, tlaaii XeskVlJic
only S3 »hra'«» lA tJie tTeaflUfy.
aoaustint la /^le^st, tr 3.i&t«r in tli« »it«ttffn ^ X91.&,
whaa wajr dnBaaAe varo l9riii«;tn^ laorenjied %«i»iat»« to tl»» tmmtmay^
Urn ^rlitea ceatriMt «hi^ f&tnm %im liaais of t^ i^ilX h«(r<9in, i»»«
(Sva^m «9 a»4 8ign«<l ^ Jairr «adi KsoMm* 7(»t »aaA rtaoea not
Tgith the dat* 9f s»i^ eidsk e«rtifi«at«8, Slut Mil <;JUtt0*a th«t
th&n» <«ma a coe^.}X<it« tmildi^tcaidtiB® 1i«tiMi«a ^^attrr and K&awa «i that
lAna th'^.t thoy ahotilA ^ aqual la 9ei^»sr« e^atrolL »aid latarevt ia
tite Q<mpsmy, 1% 1« ve »aMrt*d l^r i^'^atxrr, «a4 4«ai«^ by c4nu»n,
tiM IfttittJT clftiiniail that liaaii 8t;g:x«®fii»at wtm obtaSaad whiX* ■•'.mxnt
waji witte'^At his tat9<H4«4i0i a«S«tiatiag with tlw» f!r»9p»et of ^cttiag
a ^OOgOOO eaatrftot for Vm oowatty, i&nd tli^t auvr witisteld
knowlsdgpQ titoi*4Hif fiTfwi i^^noa uatll aftor tte <Mmir»ot 77;s>4» 9i£a«<i«
nils e«atr«t«t vao oa^o^ently ontorou iato and with oti»rti
Wrsufiht sroiftt profits to Ui« coapaasgr*
^hateYor laroro the f »oite «t t1x« tino of sit^alag aaid
M^jpoenant tbe r«Rord cootoiaa flA satiof aotoary roeord of aa und«x<»
otaading os JFtely 36, X9%% ouch c^ -laurr caairai* If there wo
moii i2» imdorotfiaadiag it i« inooiusii@t<mt v^ith pludatiff *» thoc^ry
Uk«t the 65 fi^.aro6 ivoro ioaaod to r^^tasn tarn eolJUiteral oeourity
for hio Xoaa to the ooaipaayt o**^ ^» ''^^ ^^^ ^ ^^^^ *^'^ control
aU tho ciutotaadiae otoek. iaeh tto/serj is nttorly iaeonoiotoat
idth iliat took pXmm at said stooliheXdero* iM»ctlng» itnd aXoo with
ihr ^ -'- that tho 63 (dtevoo iMf etoofc ^vm oahootpoatiy roieaaod
^4^
i» flfft «\:
a^
I
lag «f OK* isio«MioXd«fa ^iy ^» 19M^ &% •t&iU^ I'lmffv me p- <»««»«,
and tfatt 3itw fftrtifie^^tea ;mxii aigoda hy I^iis iui pr«aid«$irti of tiM
ocMiaMMty, a»4 ai«&«l«iida of 000 imr o«int» th« only 4iYi.d(»«uXa <nw9
th«f i»m»A »toek, including said 6d Tiil^i^a^jd :^arei«« If uoy
OX' h'c r«oupd)0<l si^lA omtv^et k^^ t«i/.M aiad #rafar«il»Io it is ia-
osqplloal^o* iiAiosi tlMiro wms mff loioit wmmy in t2»tj ta^&amu^' of
t!ie MMVtany* Its st)it«ut4 not have iiwintcid tm |»&£^Oi^»ii«o of Vim
o«iit^2k«t iSHste<i:^ of ao<:9iic»fs<:|iH; In tit>8 d^.Y^roifn of tkM ixmmym
into thr iMBii^. of etreaiewpo to tl» oon&rr^;^*
^iihiXo tiie li^Xl «diMir^« th/tvi suoh. dlTersicm uuj& ia {Mr*
ime»c9 0t & avaatm^ of Kansa to ^^oanrn'^i^ e&iil C3 £tu:af«» &»ci (UYidonAo
theiNif ritn to luo oi»a ujso« it oozit«xlius ik<> r;;To~mv»to c^ fo«t cffit*
otiltttiag fnmA, am& tlioTo ««i^ t0 isroof edf iiCtaeJ. fr^^d* (^ tiw
contrsory, tho Xvc-aisl fii«p;,-«yts ihsr. couciuaion IQiiit t^iC aaiO. :^to^
«»• isi'^tc^ to fjmmn in ftill »«tt2«iiifttt of tl»c Xoieii cj^ not i a
fmrnrity «j»p«f««r. He, tSiorefore, telel. tfce is-gaX titlt? tJ-ioroto
viih tb.« tt]ins^®oJi|N«Ki4 rlgltt to trsxusfer o^d tit<Mil£ to Wb<!«ov«r
iw €31000 • It MRfiWo ttoty tberefOsi^Q, isibo^^her thisrs w^^» lis^ 00B»
ftidoratioo for th«3 tronisfor of » |»oarti)^ th£ir«of to hi^ nviffs oaA
(^iJLdyoii^ «iw «t«« msOm psattUfn d^t^wismi to t%» mx%, in tl>»
on their part
aXiODxtoo of my trmOi/lt im plmiii th^^t noither tl3e UrsAtsfovooo of
oaiA »teoic« aoi* tbo p^artScmmrtt of tko 17 »hBjfi>«» or Boo^^io X«
9«MO]r» the pATdheu^r of 3 iflMVOO* liM 9oi4 v»2tto for thoir
otook, cmXd bo o<ioqNll.a«4 to i^art witli their logAl Utle to
Ui«ir arosfMit^ti^'O sh&s^'oo*
It io 04|i<aiy |>l«|]i thaR^t taw oii»3N3r 'tion, lM>t lieiiic «
•d«
INKTly to \h^ s^speiiG!im)S%t 9(Xkl(\ not h& rsKmir'^a te oom&ly vith lis
•V40 l^ofugh Umy oonir^ia^ n )Q£«^QfiV 9f li» ^i»<:^, hiua no Mud*
Xt is evidczit* th@jrol'9re« Uuvt Oi^ m^Mr^ of th« eott*
trn.dt izs mdi« that A ecuvt of @qaiiy i^^^xiaot eidi'^o^ i^ i^ptteif&o
p«yf03mai«e tfeswrcitf. In &i;&mJU.liSi# "'^'' ^3.i» ^^^^t ^«^*« It
ms in tlM» inatjsiit ^um* with 2c»st4€%« that it «^&uld not tte eti»
f^^roetd vrith(«it tlit aoti&oitl at a. Uii:rd parijr. It w;:4.ii t^Id tii^t %h§
P£:;rtioo O.0U1A not @i%fftt06 "by i;iXl for ^.^elfie ]^i'.for;s«A««t, oaA
e«urt •€ e<saity '^1% iiot d&Qrs:^ dcae^ipts*'^
on «oi&ci^ie.t olmilstr i^koi^ Otf fi^&i, i» pertin^^nt:
to for tM«» j:*en«ay« »07 is Oioyo atjy^tdag ia tJNte aatauro
of %h9 trmt&e^iem^ I'lAoe no ^%u»X frecud 1,^ prorod^ «liar
on <»etlon &».i i^^ Oh«»>ld oot latxfo 1»ooit «tpi^ropriato» **
osaMMlag the coBtir&«H is v.'^id a@ %«t«ttoa tlio ^aftioo iho»«to«
at if i i ^ v« ■■■elf > ioe XXX* 19t« a»oib»r oo^ for ^poelfio
907ferimmc« of o eoniriiot to ooXI sim^^m of oiock, tlio coiU*t ooi^L;
*To author isso a dscsroo for ^oii^ovmmoo of omii •
«<iitty«ot, it auet s^poor th»t tho r«»««&y {^i law io
Iiia4o<poit} . Xi' iiioipo w^ o oonti^Mrt for ti^ oalo of
nUmjcnn of £2t»<$k« otUI » tjr«!ito}i of tho oontrast* 1m omi
bo ftslly coBp«iaiN&lod in ^^mmeeih at Xftw.**
>oTo th« iHoroo ia effect is nothiag more tfaon « iudpoist for
•aotaim^ f07 1»?oaA of the ooatroet ootlw^^d ot o oort^^in yetltto
Ittt upoa tl»t Btook KowHA ogrood to have purc£u*ood» to«othor vitb
i&TidoBAo therooa^ iooo nlkat it &o ooiiolttdtt4 K^noa vaM eotltiod to
«l hi>^ fuXflUMtnt of tkm ooataroot. oouniag tbo eeatraot io
V«did • vhiOh 90 aood not ptiaA «90ii • tho o»m» ro^vtit &mlA \m
•%toia«4 ia an aetioa at lo»* Tho 04mi:;MiOt ia ao %-mnt iMlng
m
•f«
f«r3a«UM» •f tlM coatri^t «u*« uir^id, «t«fll »« la4lM«, tHat th» eon*
ttsMt ia iuiilat^rfil, wimttjas ia mtttiaity, tli«N( ImIiiq n# pronlM
on tho ptsrt of .^mxvv pt any lciad« 8Hii mwnm mam to e^ntlmio to
&^r99 tim o<w9«ayt flaart alJKi vithmat e«»ii«id«r)s%ti<m or miv tim
XlHlt* If tho hiXl MAot iMt dioiififMMl. «o «o lioXd, on the ^maA
aSitff fttfttod 1% ia uMaooooofi^y to e^mnld^r tho eontrs^et trwk
oUftov ipoittts oar Yiov.
^m» qttootioa is ifniood »» to Uu» yi#it «r aiiar othor
partjT lM» tho suit iiam ttjEWOii, aiK:ain.!.;t ^mt n^^mf tho deoroo io
itiroetod, to &, roviotv «r tlM df»«ro«»« l^lsw th«oi<y of tlw l»i3il is
ib»ii^t fualA 6a «ibttr«e of ih«! ^t^ook wereioonod to KiuaNi as eoll«tei«I
Olid not ia fUUL oottlciMSRt ^ th>o Xoait, imd ok thi&t th«?n3i»y SNKdecfitioa
of tlw stook a3o.mXA havo lN»eia r*<>i^lrod for ^o bwief it of thfO
n m v M t J f iM^ aoooaoayily tlioirefor^ of «X1 it@ ^rteciidioldoro* ao
t)» 4o«nMt dooo not ruXljr eoixf ojm to Owt tSuiory ^teir iatorooto
ojro •• aAv«raoiar af ro«te4 na to ^^niltlo timm to %»»>icEn nvrtae^ ond
iho %iia.« «« %jBm srottiid oikovo stated, ahcul4 ygraporly l»e dioaiiaood
aa to stXl disf«»i«iit«« Slio ''ftOMro wiil ^m,»vAin^^ IM reTorso<i«
)%rid liio O¥«iioo 3r«M8!nd«4 wt%h ^ir^oXltme to Ui6mt»« th» biX: for wtiit
of equity.
I
k
iimixSk F« .m^^^il
) COOK CCVSfY,
l.A. 648
mmxmi
rzGK immm
Fx-tM « di««9»« fi[» ar^llea .«uit la the i^lMum «i«iU«4
Wanie K^^ftB, Iha wif* af I9»m '• XitfiMi« latuUirl^ally i«4 «•
pmr^Uoa n^ illifi f«y ^* %»• fitelIAr«ii» ^ixi«ra B* Xmmii «M
Cliff #f<a XiMHMi* ^^'yitii «6 err«r uti^ siMNi out W tlit ofteHr
^MTeadaMic. /\X1 Hair* Iw^n 0MHi»l,t4»t»d Iqr o^p^^r ^ tblo eouit
for boariag* ^ooordingly refoarosoo io li»3Pol|r »ftdtt to on (pinion
filod tiftio AoQp yoirioi»ing tho «rit of orror aiio4 out ly ^«i»i ^«
Xmmii, (eoa* so. SHoea) ono of tlw iltffoaA««t« to tiio %iXX» is
ibioh «ft taoid that tlio deoroo shottXd bo vtvorood for wm% of
o^iity ia th<» biU, onti th* omoo vmtmimA «$th diroetiono to
AiflBioB ih» bUX oo to aUl dof^aftaato* tt lo therefovo ttanooooooiy
to toitertite tlw roiiooao tltovofOtrg it aypoairiag^ tiO thtroia ototod,
UUit tlM latoxnot of o«flii dofeodost io oo sf r«eto4 ae to glto tbo
9U0kt to oiudi to 999—1 » mm tat o writ of orror.
•tUlor i«i Mi»ifcitt, ^Jm ooimtJr.
^ 1'
■'-.•-■^
,«v
•v.:iS' ^oh;
mSi 6
UL
24 • ^0«4
%mmm !»• ;j«mR^\
■'^y
ai^i^idMit ia '^sts^x^
njOaurr
*rdy <
19I.A. 649
U tte biU of ««ii^liilnt fU«4 lay MumX wurr. wb iilil.«li « <l«ei««
SflMtn, imotlMnr fJ.«f<aii&ciit^ anA «l» wur* l ^^f^ f^ jiur«h&t««r« f«r
fliXi rsilum ^ ftio«K; in tJtite -.mamt f« Saaon «Mi»?tay» «»1»« »
teartag with ««»»«• Ckm* Xo*. ^39063 aitd 29064 iMVli^t •«>»
staatiaiajr t3M Mat %iU#, ia v^Hicih m h«f« «lii« dair fU«4
tplftiMie retatrslJig saIA ^l««r»* and ywnrtltiit tlw imiim far
«iMA»»«a «f the bUl« ^Ibftt ^nui msM im iHmm atiftiaiitt, twins
of re9«Uti«ii.
Qridlay tMA IikMImUv H*^ «Mt«ttJr«
k» ir
•5 • m&m
tM*
mm ommt u^*% tsmmm
smammfm
219I.A, 649
]»9)JLQy h«rrl»g MiM»t»vl fa^ r?:4l»&j;?t) odf l3t£&jc£'@4 t^-? paig » -BimM^xm
audi la -ma e-raitt of d@.f «»ijli In f^NrialiDi ^it^^etfifMla* slvia^; t3m
X% %» ^;ffp9XXmi%^9 eflwt0Htleiia that i% wmy awld «■»
«*f©«i «f MtniiltttnMait aawio u|i«« cmedi f*a»» 3P«fr«««iiiaU«»«
4»3»
ivm% ths F«??i«»<l Af cimtestaMlii^r ivn» mam fi*«n tli« d»%i ef
]r«i»9iet«nt«att •ffpooickUty vbttjsw the reiaet&tfuumt i»ai» lii^bM^A
by fr-^4*
V* \% 411 » fmd ^mm foliawlag It h/^ldlug m&% tto 9«)ri9d 9f
llnltjiitiim for a<mi'<»9t fstmmmmn ^amw tiSNm Wm mixmteHwmnt
tit %3a0 pnli^t An tho tl»»oiry th&« th» y«iiifitiitaiimit in m m^
cmtTKut fit tnmammt mA mm9 li)m -i^lf jfatetft^ i^-*^*^ '^f-
M* "f* KttagiaifegryM («»x,) S13 S. n S43t iMllaias ttiKt TR*A1«
the contract fox' r«ln»%ata»imi i» to ^ voipircloa not an «
nov ««iitv»et tmt smi a webivor of fojpf^^ltiiroi it r«iiorfo» tibo
ri^t to (^.iroid tlM> roittottttoiwait if IUi<fti«9<l ^ ttmi^taXimt
nm rulft f oUoii»4 |» tMlgftgffi V* Fidelity .M££
Ifig,. ^9s^«, M'i 111* 4i^J« i« titi«it ft ^ittot»t«»e»t io aoroly o
e^aoeilatloo of tike foxfoi1«Gr@t atiel ttbi^t tbo wri^iital poxiosr
oentiaktaii la fiai f«roo wit&<>ut inter^ui^tioii* In ta»at amm
vliilo 1^ 4e9th of UiJ$ iiftmtrod imJ3 looa thMi tiao yomro «dPtor
tlk'^ x^lBotffitmwitt Of th«i 'poli«iy it wmi mre tiHw two yoiort
«!if to2> it«» i»s3iiaiwOto«o»i tlw poli<^ "ma ftOOO]p4i»gl3r bold iit^
conto«stalilo« iiarfmim ofiiKtliotiag ;mt!i03^itioft on tlm mil**
Ject the nou]ft daalinod to follow ^m tuIo oimmtiioo^l in tlio
•'■tQtf^y atvi QthfiT obmo 9oliod on l«r ^fsUunt* and oi^Nq^od
Uvj 3rulo of otSiov OAOto v^mrm^ to tasovoiii to tha «ff«at
th0 oaatx>»ot to vdiitdn tite lixiiti^tiOR i« opf^lieaHile io
thf^t or tki« original e#iilio^tion mid policy* «aid not tiio
roinittsttod eao« 'Shim io in ooa o o ai a ioo with tlw stat«tt« iiUL4li
mt3sa& the 9oU<9^ WMl osn^iOMtion taisjcefor tto entire oontrset
il:.ix'Z
•3*
JlHjggllgll^ m««« tliiai iipsks o«4^ isf tike 0€i»tra«i mxi timtii»o%tiS»iXitjt
t&e pelAi^ ia 8»^ **ttt«0Kte.;;t«ife3U s#*«r lam y»».ijns f»t»i U« date«»
&2mivt fcg? f^edtf ied i|si'^0ti«Miiii M©t iavft^lT^i h»m ism ihti% <te not
Vim mm^tsxf*^' ^^Kiaim^ttim «f ilasikt It «^^is>ll «0«»i ttt»lMt«rir
t0 lii^snxirt^^iUiy lM»r#]p<i i«»miitt^ » t^iXicy* llew»v«^t it is vanewissjsxjr
49f«i!M)9 «i£r^r Hm i«pii« tl* t^ifd y«!.-;»a ft em ist£at»i&«» »Jt tM p^lisy
Athei' tluatt tlii»«» 4<a^iaMi«i imwd in tls« statute » risi*^ i^iu^pnynnii
^ IRNflS^BRi «a)il Yl«l-«&ti«i «f Him mtditimm of tl» ^>9XI.Qy 'ir^i£.tiaa
to issiXlt'^^qf »v mmiX »exTric# in %Um 9€ Vi^*
Oitiaisy smd iLAt^Hmtl, 39 » 9 cafunctir^
101 • ^»38S
iKPi^AX. mam
\ ^ / I com c«3©anf«
219I.A. 64 9
Ski^ wtm m mA% ^t»»n m tnii»iriMiiiii policy ie«»«4 Iqr
d^«itA«nt em^mK/* It plea4«d thi^t tJio sottd «mi mil &mi rulA.
iMreoHuo i^ooarod upmn f aloo and usttanitt vepimeNsnti^iioaB ^th
xvsjpeet t« tsattof a «ot«rial to Urn riok laftde Iqt tte inaaro^ ia
1^8 upplicr^Utm lifiaoli WMB a j^art of %lm ooatraei* A dwnyroy
to the 9l«ft iMerlig iMieii »tstiai»9d im the grmand tl&i>t the aiitt
ma fiot brmtfibt nitiiia tim p&ri9d of ooiit««t«MIity» a^fea&ast
olo^^tod to otand Iqt its ple»« 8ii4 op^olod f rta tte iuagnmt
ogoiaet it*
flw 90li<gr oiMd OB vooitod tb»t It osui <*iitooiit«»ataiao
«ftov ooo jpomt fron the "date of ioisito'*. vftdi^ mm on i.ieptftxriMr
7« 1916 • iQm Aaourod died ^rll 15, 101 /« oad |Wo«fs «f dci»tk
wore Otay fuml Jiod within 60 dajps t}iorofroBt 1»t tiss ^^otioii woo
not o«OBa»ttooa ttiitil s^wmSmr 7, 19ia, • aoro than ono yttr oftor
Uw death*
Ai>polir^t cQBt^eidfi thMt tlw policy ^otKt oiWioolaMkt
at the titoB of thB doatli «f tlM inattrod* iritea tlio Ofla»e of ootion
accrued, it rcaaiaod oo* ao inaittor alion OHftt aoo otcurted* Xt
ttOfVbBv coatoi^Ui that itotwi&iati^adiag tHo ][Maioy a«no4 a lesaov
<»3*
as iim Jam&^ut^ vf the policy m» to inetmtentaMXitjr Tari«0 fz^«a
UiG provi0i<m required ^ t^b^ »tati»it>o i» )w l3is@:rtod &a tlM pi^UNgr
tnily a,» to tlu> loagtli tf tiM »«ri»d» t^citixm m» liMito^a of t«»
s%9.t3A%«ry ro-^ilroiasiitt ttao oaoo osi3L2.ii for tiM oonstiruotioit of tlit
«ta1»i%«t« «iiKi urgoo thfit if it too 00 oonotxvod timt tho pctriod of
conte stability ^stJlX runr^ on i^tev tto» doofli of t}i«» iBCHorod on^ili
coni}tmeti<m wlia,» in iiss$ Xmigjas^ of H^fisg^^ t« lb£S4S98l* 31-^3. Ill*
257, and .iteasji ir.j^JL£!lUCJMlaai# ^^ i^l* ^» *e«»«« «roat
inju^tioo and ioa4 to ^mum^gkmumn i«liiOh ciora tal»s3ti»d and i0ii«& the
l€g:i^^»tttiNii oo^Xd aot httvo o«nit«M|i3Uito4'*« tsad $ii^«o rosuXt iit
asa>li:^itlos as to s^i^to £«ft<A yroQiKi»3r«» Tlol.ato Hift Xe«iolatiYt
^^jRSMill^^Bt tltov«itiN»;<i froooodo to r<}olt« instanoos* «f
ba3rdadtfp» Vhfkt aH^t TOsoXt f ron au«& oonotrtteil<»i vm&m' t«iifth
tiao iHMuror w<mX<i 1m wittiaut a ro9Bi»^* '^thmit ■:Jioau»«isig t3imi
lye or:rmot ooAoedo titet AofoMAsai^ wns wltlimtt t^ r€m»4y in Oi|iiit|r
fo:r fr&ukA in proouroaamit of tito |N»li{^» elt^ofui^ it anQr te
kM^ovoS ill 4iodov&ry of tho trmoA ia oomi inotoaooa in ti»e
to olbU4ii ociuitaMo rnXlfaf • 'sim do "m find «ay iafl>i8»tty t^rioos
«• to t3:i« ri^a^a or yrooocturo if moSi oonotiratotiffia in vuioi>to4»
iir tik&i it wouid oo»t9ri£voao «^j|y oonotitutiditol 38*<»vl&ion« in
faott oXInio ting; aucdi ooatcntioaa t^,^ ttntoaoblo vm doiai tJao
2>^ng?»^ «f tlw <3||pv«no cmtrt In Uio oauot <^ JMBim ▼• sa«tyot>olito»
^y-- InWftfr tf^g''^. ^^" ^-^ ^^* ^^» oiPpUeaiao to the »tnto of
facto in tt^ isotoRt «««»•
■^bilfj iippfslletis QontonA^ lOtat tltis ia aot a oaoo of
itotatoxy -^onotruotion 1»ei«i»o tho ooMt^tuoy voiAtnt.Arily oontroctod*
•3-
&9 it ad/jht do, for a short«r oont«8ta.ble p«riod than rtcfiirftd
lay statute, jret wh«1^bAr we oomatrue the languagt of th« contract
without regard to ih$ atfi.tato» or look to the latter with all
its IntendoBMnte, we do not feel at lilwrty to disregard the
XanguaiEe ezat^lOTed by our .Jupreae Court In the '■■"jniflltnili ette«f
thtxigh applied under eoiaewhat different facts. To he iwire that
case wae decided hofere the passage of the statute » tut the
proTiaion in the policy in the insttaat ease, meaely, *that after
one year the policy shall he in oonte stable** etc., and the language
of the statute, "that the policy shall he incontestable after twe
years from its date" are hardly e».pahle of different locaninsis
as to wlu»n the period of centestability begins i^nd ends, unless,
as we do not find, other parts of the statute am inconsistent
with the specific reference to the date of the policy as the
l)er;lnnlng of the contestable pariod« In fact tlie language of
the statute is nore explicit on that point than that com; trued
in the ffonahan ease.
i^aile in that case also the insured died within Uie
eonte stable period the court held that it w&is incunibent upon
the insurer ither to tukis affirsiuaiTe action vdthin such period
of tint to effoot » caaeellalioa or rescission of the policy,
or by BuOcing a defense to the action brou^t on the policy
within sueh period*
i^le that oaM did not inrolto the t|uestifjn of fraud,
wlOoli we think mi^^t be coxae ground for suoh affirmatlYe action,
aod while, as sugc^sted by appellant, eases nay arise odusing
soTore hardshiys to the insurer if the period of contestability hao
run before diseorery of the frisud, yet as the statute does not in-
clude frtmd in its exceptions to the linitation of such period,
md its language and that of the policy are inconsistent vdth
•ny other theory iium thrt tha period of centestability begins
ooMtinnos to run f roia the date of the policy, -m find no
T mmtm t9T exela'llii^ tbs f a«ta Sji t£iift a^UMl fJN I i Hi* gpti>«iti«ii
The oempsmy iroXa»%ra*iXy fl^sd » flAunrlMtr pttriod of
o«at« stability tikan that prwrtAtiA ^ w%ak1m%»^ miA m tiMd tm
froift «w4 y^<<u^s t« ««»» oim Iw i»^siiur(S«i€ m agalaat |«ib|.ic x»o3.icy*
It was said in tlie ||M^iq^^ oa^ tli»t «iaX« tHo ]»«7i<Nl 99er&t«»
lite a stfttcttwy Ximit^iti<m its '9axp9i»a m%s t# «UU9r«r tiJiw f «r
the di0««v«r3r 9f f r^mcl* v« c^^ittMt niiy thj»t {«• snesr wro too
^Oioi^t f9r tli.^i vmrpeam* iMi^ 9«rri*a hsviAfS ^i^un, if t^i« oanp^jtjr
iQ Umrehy d^sprtimd of «at luud^^at* Vimts^ at law^ it 0£>j| ht^jrdly
OQeKPX.Ulu of tiM reni3>t «f a i!»r@ libiari^ e^trt^ot Uma the
statute re^mix^d it to lUklee* AOoeirdiiigXy the |ttll0)ttKt ilil
9yi;ii»7 imd ]6et4li#%t* Jl*« $9»«tt:ir«
err
136 • 2S30S
/
eoox c@iannr«
■2l9I«Ao 64 9
A lucs^neat %&» «nte3r<»d ;;(lM>l»t i#pel.iA« «ii » saw*
fiUkd 09^»kOirit» Gild aXlmired id tatmA m mmetity i^tUt ^bkomNI
f97 <i»f«aiMi. ;^9»ll«tt :fi:U4 l^ie (gtimrtA i»m»M iMi four speaial
titkitib, ft|»peXl«« was tlM JMilBur^ w&b without 99iiiiid«v»ilaiii, (3)
lli»t it smM tm e^e^mtsmAi'ti^a ne^tt tuot iMld Ity api^^llimliis i»
<liMi e«mi?»a fov T^iue, (3) tim% it w^ giirvm f{»r a :a9ii«ifi9
pajiMlM <ia ooa^itlAii of wa iiabilil;;^ «f ce>^|i«IIe«« tmd (4)
tltot aiipftllaats »4^ n9l haX^^rn in ttuf» s«or«« Vefwre m!$^turit|r
f «r V&3AM eitd %&^ tlis o»i« witii full Immtli9^t§s9 of «1X it»
inf iraitieo* ao^liecttioas oeaoiudiiig to tiBit eoianirjr imw9
fiJUd t« ail pioRS ex««Ft tlie »ee«ad 8M4 fmtrtli «SM»«i8ii |»i.es8«
and rvpiioatioaa aT<»arri]Rg '&ak»% tlur not* «»>8 a«ecnsrj^fta«t|iMi
pajKir glw» td the 9ft>*t«« y^» Urn Fliat, auad «»d^»«4 sand «l«l.iir»
«i^d ^ Ilia t0 «j^,^ilants **!» ]^3jrt pa^nMiit* of « 9i«««xi«tiiig
deil>t <lu« tvom hin t« the fira «f H^ferc «ad Heixe. > v^i9iM$m
t9 the last MOfititnod jfefiieaticnaui took is«M« m tJit iMt«
teims *'to 9«3rt |Mifai»it*«
It mm ceiic«4(3Hl at tlus trksX that tSia n»%« iR»a m
««««iM»d&ti«M Mt« givm ly ltlii«r t« iittt at tiM tii» tiMi
^■:^; lir
•»9»
'^.fter lO'iK^ «f %ho n9%» «a^ ejBQuat duo thiHMOxi, e^A
«Ti4«t]ia« was Mainly In mpport ftf a^d re4»iiMl«F8 to t)» •iy««l
tlui% sftid ii«te «&s not &eo«9%«kd im ^csi't pnyiMilt «r FJbliit^a A<lM
to itagMTo ^ toll** nnd <^t7f«]Kii!«t firo^etd tSio la^telp** IflMlrii !•
olMw thet tlt« fiai flMHHt ^ B^d de%t ««« ti^rgod up to hta
«ft«jr tbe siviug ^ oeid seto^ witl&auir glvli^s hiJi «v«4&t thero**
for, md plaintiff ndKitted tho sote w^a vkbygt er^^itod tfi* Hlo
ac^cnant. tho pjitiof, tlierefero, ffill^O'J to ^^taiil plaintiff * a
FeplieatioKi to the «f oof!^ and fwortli i^poeiaSk 93.«(&« aa to |Mq^
lia.t tiMro «oy« &ttioir id«ii«<3 tluoi tinat of ^^^ocptattoo
of the atto i» yavt yiq^Wftnt* if tha luito w^a talnn a» MQturitjr
instoad of yort fMnanaont of tho -t»ebt, ae d^foiutuato thonsaolfoa
pvoirttd« tijam tein^ f oaf a pw^mxkstimei doUt it «^i.a *for v^tlito",
(300* mt, K«s» Xasta* Ms% of i^?« Savdi** '.* i»*« di. 9id« 431
momdnat^ . 91 id* a«>>i «nd «iM3ro aoumwinlation vs^or io
toiceit ''iA tho nonHd ooitroo «f %u«|iaioa» for r^^Mm^ tho Mide»r
vill aot ha ii«to»e<l to if ho asfsoiiui it mm i^thout oDnaid««>«
atioa." i^M y. JU>« |ff4 . %m Ui» ms,^ 870*) Homo th«
pie& of want of cionaidomtion tmm »o% impportodt €to tlM» «oa»
trasrr defftAdaiit* • ovn evldioMd to»dod to alMMr that Uio Koto mm
givoA as aeoonMMatioa pesMnr ead .^sui ooourity f «r aao^^ f««*
•xiiBtiiis todalflodMMni t« oaid tlvm^ ifttaemmt to a ooavero&tion
h»d vdth a teooaood notfhtr tf «^d fin» at idiloh >*itii^»ahA S|»llo,
a sttrriTiif mmfimt «r t}^ fixvi, ^yo yyoe«»t« Kr« mile wao
eali«d %r d»f endafit, imMI ta»tif ie<a thfi^t be «ao yrsiMHit liioB «R
Arrftngeai(>nt wae made Ijefcwe'pn 7^Xint«aad ''ogor«, thn deoft&Bed
newiber uf tii« fir®, to th«» eff^ot thRt Flint would produce
two not*»e yf $9C0 ««cU t»a security fcr the ©dvt^nce uMid« for )xia
Uy tii* fira; and -lint, Alof^ Oftlled by &&t^n^tiv.t, testified to
hflTlng p ccnversftticn Afith the deecMSO*? Kcf:«rB wr;er« the £:;iYl&g
of th*^ ncte rygs dl&oufffted bt^fcre it <w»8 giver, ari*! thf*t ju»t
b*^fcre it ■^ti.t f,iv«» Filler alvc iit^d ei ccnvcreution with »©id
Hogerfl ref:nrding tfee Rote« and waa with Hint when be aelivtred
the note to anid J'ogers, "^ilc tfce ocurt prcpwly did net per-
mit either of them tc cive tin* ccnvcroaticn with tae deceased
Hogers* yet there imo no ocntrndiction of Pollo»a teatireony •
preeectftd by defenflnnts the^gelveo - ^hioh tended to ehcvt that
notes of $5r:o each w«re to bi? delivered aa Bccuritv fcr oudi
l«bt# »nd the e7ldeno<? ahow» thn.% tn« not« in question for 'I500,
and another for the »«JBe amount, w^re ^JeJivorfd to aaid firm,
and diseloara nc othrjr purpoee in <!eTivering thera, 7e think
th«r« wns waple prcof, therefore, to show that thi» r-ote. in
queetion »aa given and accoicted as 8(»cvirity for awch »>8bt, and
r»8 8 thus talfn In oouree for vnlu<? and th':*r*»fore puprorted by
« ocnei deration. Ksnce, wo tainic, the oourt erred in ita
findinga and in entering Judi^xaent for a),^pellee« The Jud^aiDent
for appellee will aeeordingly be raveracd, and o» the caae yraa
tried without a Jury jud/j^ont will be entered h^^re on a dif-
ferent finding of facte for the aac»unt ct the note with in-
terest at 6,0 frcjn the d«t'5 tijerr.cf , jenuary 3, 1912, as Ujereia
provided, being ^762. Sc,
-4-
138 - 25952 • 7IKDIHC CF F/.CTS.
We find thst the note in question was executed by
appellee and given to nni tprrn in due course for value ioy the
partnership firw of 7?op*»rs ?- Hollo, of -srhioh .".ppellante are
the aurviviiiji? tamabmr^t to secure a pre-existing indebtedness
from the payee of so id note to fjaid firm* wiiioh now azaounts to
$762,50 and remains due and unpaid.
163 • 25417
/\
of the estttte of mwaKts Q$sjm:x,
?»«
iiLUAX jrons Bjotxausf
rxuxit*
219I.A. 649
COCK C€OVirT»
219 I*A* ^
HI* wsmjmm mmtm mmm
IMs is fta ntttioit for dawk0t« ttnd«v the statute fox*
tiliHiis the death of plaintiff's intestate » MmmA Qjuarry.
fhe vevdiet and Jud^Bttat vwv« feir $1,900 • The gr^emiAe ux^eA
fev rover eal are laainly to^oiiMil.*
It ia first ppised that in fena tho 4eeXarati«H(i i»
« yorsoaal action for aaoenlt* MI@ the deelaratien reciteo
the fact of an aseanat t>y blows Kin& kielqs It ie plainly pro*
dleated on the olafti that death mm the ^^oxiamto roeolt of
the in^nrioo aremiltine therofroK, waA the oridenee clearlj
•listaised th® chax^e that the injurieo oere tito roeult <tf a
hlow* It plainly testdad to ^hov th^^t doMaood oao etxuok
in the faoe hy as>j^lXant with aitf rioient foroe to fell hin
to the street^ iherehy eottoing a fraeture at the haao of hie
•holX ehieh resulted in his Aeath* Bo mm tahon hoM in mk
tuioonaciotts etato, had convulsions the follovine day, rolapood
into uaeoneeioiionooo mA died the oeoond d«y after the
aesattlt. The attending s^yeioiim, haeing his opinion hoth
upon hio om oauMinatiOfa and the cireumst'^ooe of the aseanlt|
ao testified to and not di^iputod, testified thet death
ensued freoi fracture of the sloill re ml ting frem violent con-
t&ot olth the paveannt*
.;rj^f ■<*♦" ' '■■;?•;- ♦^'
ITitff
rsl
iU'^
til:-
•2*
<|tt«sti<m sn% %9 hiMttm nhlcii aiuifei op^iniftzi -mut •xpreawna^ on tht
ground thai it ignormd. that otAmr iDJ^ttrltt awar ibave tote2ir«iMt4«
lOmv im« so sound luusis for tki* a.^(Aui9ti«ii of au«li it fftet* TIum
«»• o9thiiig t« intiieat* « ¥i««l£ ia tlM »«f|a«n0e ef ewsdltieiui
tliat f oXXewod th« blov* Xlw eridettM ait^P^JHMd lut on* InTaToiiM •
do&tli frea fracttire of tlse sleall, prdTcimttoly eim«ed ^ tbe b3,mr
•U9 afosfesajld*
Coa^laiat tei asnde of tl»» eourt*a Xiasltatltti of lOit
erooo oauoKlxi^tlon of the wife «»r dee««uMKl vith i*«jg»rd to hit
hoaXth. U^ ciaestlon «KXoltt4e<l c^Xed twf m conoXuoion aaA ttot
« faet wiUiin hor icaoisXedflO*
)<ixo«pti<m mMi aXoo taton tliR^i defeitd^at ««i8 not i^naltted
to tostifsr* Tiw oftso did net oomo within amy otatatory exoeption
warrantiag hio ri£^t to toatify. 'Sk» i^dov tmA miamr ^mgiht^r
tootif led that nfttoit dcooawod wtm brmi^t bono ho iamd a out oa his
iiy* itiafeiidaat offered to testify that he hfi^dl IM» out on his faoo*
r^t this w&» quite ianaterial «e Xmm as the evidence indleatod
mt other osMise ^ death thisa the f raotttre of the ahaXX, and the
•Tldeaoe was usdiaputed that it reeaXted frtm a faXi oauoed hy a
blovf or a ^she^ve" a» defei»Aiiiit hineelf ^fored to show* The
offer rejected aXoo iM^rtaiaed to ^rordo ImA with dooeased, and the
Xatter*a attitude txt the tine* 9ut viftiether testlaumy oa the
Otthjeot iRae within the itsliibiti<^n of the statute or not, it
offered no jus tifi option for th« %saottlt widoh was the proxiswte
oauMt of de;atai* liefeadaat aloe offered to contrudiot the tostiMmy
of too «o«oa to the effect tho^t one of tho» relmtod hia before
ioaviag the soo»e for aakiait the aaeauXt. But a denial of the
•vbillSi had am tendency to roftite the controXXing faet that
^ofondaat without due yr«>iroeation assauXted deceaeod aad thereby
•* %et
.'^i.
n«ra«»'-"
• 3*
It i» pr«icii«ally i^xlroitted 1;^ a^ppollee that it wa»
axvor to instruet ttaa $ury tliet iS the att&sult vsraa ualaidrtil aieul
«iKiM4 4«atb thd Jury sd^iit umatd mmtt^mmey or piuiitiv» danb^s.
M% tliere caa 1m> ro 4c?u1»t of <ief®ndszit*8 li«<bllity fx'oa tk«« ua**
eontroTi&rt«4 eTi<l«n«e. Bo<Hiaik>«»4 was 60 ^mf9 A^ «<£• tua& oamlsg
a salary of '141 per w»«k« Ho l^t a ndldtw Biidi tw© saiaor ehilfitr«ii«
a slrX ssd « boy^ 16 find 13 yenjrs 9td imup&c%ir%Xy» His «aEp«fltati«»
of Xlf9 under standcopA taMloo of loortalii^, of #U<ilai omirto %f%Tm
judioial BOtioe, i Mprt^mXl y» yiftyo^j ^a,^ 293 XXX* &63 a»d eaffoo cited)
imo sono 1& yooaro. Tho rardiot woo for |10©o, an asiouat lit would
•am in Al»m2t ofw y«i&r mid » h&lf , Upon ^»y fair coa»ider«titflt
of tlw «vidoA«« tlio amount of tho Tordiot oould xiot roaomude>ly
luKVt boon loot* ^n faot it is eo low w» to indioate t&at no
pr«ittdieo roaitltod froii l^e orronooao iststrootion* %'im emxrt oloo
ii^^oporly rofuood &n inatxuetioin offerod Jsy Oefendant whioh atatod
tho proper ml* of ,d«»sia»«* 'M% iiAiett» ae Iwro, there Is nothings ia
the record fron whioh it cun %m» oooa that the glTlag or refuoiag odT
on instruotiOB will ^arork c^ny isjury to the d@f end^ntf the giring
or refuoing of that nmm i» «ot attdli prt^judlcial orror ao ought to
work a r«Tcr»al of th« jud«Bi«»t ^low. (0*^8^1X^1 goal Co* v. MlWfi.l*
1^ Ul. 12S, 139| Bot^io y. Qroen, 171 111. 4t$.) ^«ih lergor
judgnents on & siislliir otato of f a«t« horo been frequently i»a-
tained. In feet, a Jjud^opnt for a loos amcmnt wculd ]^ perly havo
lioea sot aside.
Clais io Hade «f a Yi^rianeo but there was no reasoaohle
baois for it.
In apite of the eoweeded errors the Judifpm»iit should bo
offirined.
firidley msoA Ifetoliett, JJ«» eonour.
tm * mm»
:^h ^ lu mmmmk
EVi^ 1^* HSflDl^d^
/ij?|»elX«»%:#
219I.A. 650
amm*
owners. Ma «ife*i» t«s>U»MKr !& supiKiri of Hum «efli «Mi&3f
Qui »l#ii in 1917 lio emm imm €vmikt mximm^t Jmif Im<I»
Hi0Mm itf <»d ^iM« lari^iae it &n mat s«{idiil4Mi mm% to «^««9
i^tli twr ^Mp^oil* •!» «R» W(mi:r%4. %«> 09 %m NiMii la tlM» •tmm
t tisio oft«&04ft la tlM iwziftlae* m 1(^9 to eHolMrd tor. UtiivlaK
vislMUi ativto «r Iii8 vio^UnM** ttovw tor ««i tto liit«iiwii t«^ia«
^4ia ttoii namr tMiHPi %t tov m 9»m wem l»m%m tto v«<mt iM
<(f'l
HA.V
X«i?t «teeta (Mwitts mm tiHiiiiwiii» He mtrn^ m&
is^f wUJte t^t her £3sil thm itta^d tm* «ver ««i ia» Inrf^fieen pi<r««e «f
([^«ii« «sg»iiiic lh«p luoi^ te l» »® «e*©3piy %mmm,t»^ ^mA
l^ <ilmn^ t^t flte ifl ftmt#»4 to iw^ tt ^Mw «A It 1M»
litem h»r m^ tsiSts Vim hua^ ^tb. him, m& ^t m» mm ttm
wm %mGid»^ mA iimi&^-%miam ^ «fe»»i ^^ it tSm f^^Umm^ him*
awl tim »imy lum wm wmm nnprnpi^s tm mmo^^sitxip* -imikX^up
MtatKitt, iAma tiidKm III •onn»0li«n icltli df^r s&^rte liK^gRitc&tlMe
not v*Mm U mth&Ti%i»nt nor &ttm»t t« «i£il.a£^
iv Mat (kf tlMam* tamA «Tl'i«awn> an iM«ili |i« lamm 1$m
of aliMUny*
ai^ldldir «daa tta%<diitt, JS*.*
X9^ • 2Hm
T».
XBVtM AX&A«
1 9 1 .A, 6 5
4»» M lUQr ««3.<i ^ ^liA t9 A|^p&Xl««* ^]M^H«« denied tlw oontrs^t
iHt sal* 93L«a4i]is that XtoM wem dtt« i»bu» upont » aalA weide toy him on
A e«Mraiai»ie& tMuii»« for tdach Iw ]^emitt«d to ap^ll«mt 1^ cits ok
reoliiag thai ^b« •aaat ^m» ia *faJ^ peqraioiit*' of the luiy i«<miT«4
ind ttold* end tli&t tlao r«%«i»ti«a of smM cl^ok Qimotitsitfit an
»oe«rd. tanl or.ti«£ia.otion«
A^t;oXI«uit ooooodoo it to Iw thfi iftw that aoooptiHieo
in full 9»i3^Bamit of ft iooisioF saiiouiit tl:a» th t dalMNi idMMm th«»ro
ia a bg^ f^dg dispute or l»«s»t diff earonoo ooaotitiit«i» m. aecor*
oad » tiof ctiea, Imt urgoo Huit lAiotliesr tbo diofit^o mm * JtgQA
fide ono woo e ^oatioa of f».et fof 8a%«i«ai<m to the ^ry«
1^ oiridoiMM dioolOMo thixt of tor the hay ^mo ohi^^ad
8»d r«<!^i<fod o|»p«Iloo oieimd it oiko «»t of the (iu«llty 1»G«Sttia»4
for« smd that ha ft««t word to appoilant that uiaeao ho hoard fr«B
htii to the eoatrftry he wauld eclX it oa cosnieoioii* and iMit hear*
iiK@ fron iiXm. in the tlm »j>«9cif ied« oeXd the hoy and eo»t a
oboek titttrofort lose oaqpemaoo end hie ooHnieoion* on the haolc
||tf ^iX0k woe evittea »in full pajnoBt of the hay received."
|A9peUttt retiuniod the check, refaeing to eoceft it as fttli ?ay
«t£
1
k
•s-
e«ftttpaei* as itontended for ^ Mb« w<r<8 sot nade witMn thr«t
d£i.ya, ¥wo dnjrs 2U&t«]> app«Xlft« sent tlie dSMtek iMtck with tlw
i^Wt^fistat tliat if apr^ftlXcmt did not w^t to s6e«pt it itt s«tt3.e»
mrmt 230 "wcKJiXd Kair» t« 3.ot ilMI C(»uirt decide** • Ap;^Jtlaat l£@]?t
tHe ciseek* hiui It cortifi^a, t»p»uglit mii the telXowim mniM
md after it wta 1i»egaii s<aii Imfor© trial hM th® ^bift«]<; ii«tali«<l«
XhQ]hs cam be no ground fer ^my inferenee frm nuali
t«eti«Miy Uiaa t2mt ai^p«U&iit kxiew tili«ii 1m» tept tlie €di«4^ onA
h&A it e«artif i«<i tliat it vas tendered g» o«mditi«ii tb«t it 1»«
eocopted in fuli pcijfinaiit of hie olaim* 0Rd«7 sm^ clvmsa»%tuM99
thero das )» no doubt tha!,t it Q^ai»ti1»»tdd an. aoocsrd £:iadl »»ti«»
f actioo if ^er« ««Mi a Jiffilft fi^« <ii«pttt« «r hoiMVt differoBM
bet«e0it tkmm as to the jMSaouat due* Ifhat tli«?«r «»« eucii ft di«*
isute tdiftti i3m tStm^ was M tco4e?etl and retaijausdi 1»» in our
o)pl;ii(»n« tsle&riy indicuited 1B^ both thfi plea^aiags and tli« CTideiMs*
^^aiftt imTe the s»rit» ef tli^xt dispute i» su»t ^«£itiflfidd mor i3m
tttst of iti» existenoo*
I*94^fci»ig t« tise pleading it ai^eears t^t )^p«il«Kt
%ft&9d lii» eialm tm &a ttl)«ol»t« saX* «f Um hay tii ai»;i^il««»
lA&ioh tlis letter doniedt cXairJjat^ ih»% ;«yMXe he x^oaiined tlK»
hay it wss noXd ttp«a <& Q«fwi»8i03i liasi» fKnd tiwit tlMt retantion
ef tiM «AM0k ft» af«r«8a4d tendered "in fuXX poymmt'* eoiuititizted
ea iicQOz>d eAd autiaf taction* 1!hef ertAmnm <m this immm furthtr
di8oXo3«8 Itim umm ftttitud« of the partioa with rerpoot to tlio
nature of tbo eoA tract betvwon %iam end the ^>ouBt da« tinder tlio
trsmcj^ctioa «t «ad Veforo tho iiaf of t«Bd@riiig the olieo&« ftao
undisputed e«rr« »poiidoito«i l»Qtireea thoni »» to thoir difforenooo
■ttpported no oth«r inforonoo tlmn tlmt eppeXXee dooiaed his oV
ligation vfts ^i«ogod to a oomBtit»i«% l»asi» #uRt«iror aMjr iMKve
• 3»
been tike erlgiaid stgaro^iaent )»«tiie^a th^a* If ftO« tbsr« vsui
aa uA^«>£> Uorusa dispute cdT ^jpoIXsast * a elain uhlc^ natlMirisod
tte dlreeted vsirdLlett for ther« eould l3« ikd q^ftsti^ii of the
QxiaXea&a of «Ra(;ih a diepute »» x>«(|alr«d (^|>«Il«i»t» «lM aert&la|r
understood that %h& chedfc vtrs tendorod oa the oonditj^coi t^t it
be &6oo$»t«4 in iTaXl p€sjrja»ikt of his eliiisi* to return th» Mmm
if Ik© did net «daili to notitcpt the eMmditieaa on whioh it wm
Undorod. XJae I««r In saste a a^so is fully considered in
9§Uim^u ▼• ^sjsalki i^i lu. 356*; jsaasi t. iisim* is^ ^^* ^'^^i
s*'^ a>MBr T« grioslnaiia^y . aao id« 1^« and 23eno<s ne«d not Imi
furthar disonsaed*
Oridlex «id Matdtott, Si^m§ oonour*
X^H^A.
i»iam gm-M oammt.
^
219I.A, 650
n .I.A
tm
&m?»
iSftHM ^3@ ^£1 #M^Utr «eM
(r-)
¥iMi m»m mA m»ix tiKfiiMm ims^ mM
3 i«r
Ltt04 t^
^«Km»4 ft nu fi
m%^ ti»t 5 p^ mm m
Wm^t to
%Mm (mi>% mm
Ll-i
V tMfm&iAXi^ mi^mmmtsiUmm ana fWL»^ te i^mffrnm m
m^Oii^ im» pum%$Sf ^^mm mmit^^m^ m m^. wm maim fm
•wtfeoir %m%& the tmiUm4f% m wfittmk* imt It
itfi MKiailAf em i» ^^riUlllie (l@1t%a|» t«iKl«3Mia i»@1»«MSti«»'lil«
m iga^im m i%^ t^m e^iBm tine mmmak w^talm mXX;&A
mi wfi%im ^ml^mU* (fla^lt ^* Mlili -^4^1 ^^* 'i^* ^^•>
»3w
ittt c»a (siMdEi jniliKi mi <ian^(imyi(KiiiiHj' xnii ilHi Hf Ifts
iiiiaa^e tliif Itury «uhim&4 ^mam Immwi tfti'?ti?tt0%«a sue tft tOw 3^a«ir U»i*(i«a#
tirr iff tl)« wTfttct ttmt «yL(3li a pr«Hl«» Ota »»i iimmt in l^tar %•
fx-vMA* fOiiiNnii^ lilt pmsik^mt &t tslMa tliwi 9f mMm tt ^Mt^ Aot
iaitxtd %» mrf99m* tm>Jim»^&i &^ Has v^ett^ m^VL^t$»!& fm Vim
M^m^iiit tmm&Kt %^ini$Sii»€ t3gm% im mM^d mat mdA witmAm it
mm v«mmt9$3Ba» e^nfttr t« s^l^eus^ tM» iaim^mk^tifm*
Aii ts» '^tifsi ewi^mt^m X% ia j|^t»%i«iMia» ^wtlMur la
view of ''^tM ||idlt»fiiiSt«» tft^tliiimi/ ^ %^ -^it ^Ti«d 9C Unee; w%0
tiff «■':« a»t s£:U4Mrti!iir a ^iitomtti^ 1^ tfHtiB^ mmmisiemr&sm^ t9ii%imms^
df atM SKA !NiXy ^mm wSsAm^Wi*
mA it i» alum d»iiD^^ ii!i»iaii»if Umi (ttiimim »0bimmA
mm mtftiv^mit to fNam^^tittxt^ trmx^§ mA iftielSJIi^ lilett mm iaHMiamA
,M m^ mm imt mmim *^i^yts* t^-idJc^*
i«i mi»««s»U1»3Ui <«f ettm^tsuaiiflll ISlftt 4';f«}fidj3||t «^ Hit ittlHaNMl
l«^ii»e it e^u3Ld fm% f^em «%(t«(lii»d ». nii»«i3» fws^mmWJi Mi»ti*?.^
t^ 3pe«l. &rm>A of »«i»ti(si» tfifto not fii;^t ^taiamltm^ ngmtM ftteem
Skxt iM» litj»tameti«ata ooooi to hsm> Imtm «ff««Ml m Him m^i$*e%»
IS^U^'^fim tt U)e£4>' t^t 1^Kt«P« W l i i tlao i' trioi %km j^Xoad*
llio ««U1 %e tt«tJttot«»« o«i !^3risi«^pik«« or %m not iHNtt io ^«asotlAii «o
f«fyttiii fy«B fiftrtliwar .vJUttdt^ to Hio ovid^aaio* A aei; t3tti»X O^taaM
'Vti*
M JHte iMNff ^^* Ji£lttii ; mfflf iMk
.A^is iiai^ii{£.<yi3i,
ftpiaii^ «Ml sgii|«liirttt ^'t ^mmm»
uwd^
m» • »fltt4
"mi
ill«ai.t«
COOK OOliliTT,
Q T
50
ef 0x«v«i£M» «f m^ e&m tw M» mm tkaft'^*
a f:r«te;i&l» Wat 6«;n^i3i3^ 9V«« '>Mle it w^.mi 'btting ttnl&ind^ Imi
tell mw wm mmpt iaio mm 9^ it* tni^t^' holds %^ tfae hoiatliig
with t^ «a«« tliAt eMitsiiMNl tut emvsitm «f tlM mimMNm «if»4
9» tt tJ(*«Ilay tti»^i*»»tttli tSw ^«m 9» hwm «f e foemm* tin* %e«tt
}.«ijr «iUi Itu 0t«)3r)9e«9rd ctdie »»xt t» tiw 4»«tk* %h«» fioriuii* yiM
«i s-^til* p«urtiai«X t» tJMi htm%9 «b6 tlu» iwifoi iind4Hrat«4te tilii^
tbx} "oloap^lwU.'* ««(t «»0» mff^A «iet«ildl«4 ««»«•« th» ^•i&t 4i«it«|»
ly 9wmg Vm 9»s%%miXm imX& %im% wm Iwliig ual««tf^» 13bw wrvoaiettt
troli«4 lay tlw MHiipuil^tioii ^ 3L«ve3e% Is tlM» o«|p* Xa tli»
^ce900iire mev««Kit« tim '^tQ.ms** MKsvti. oliMg i»id«v tlw ^«Ri« WM
Immr^a itttt tlM h«3.4« gr^bttd » lia«l»t of «artf ^ci»« then liftsi
mA mmnt^ ^auA a&fiig thit %<mb t« 1m €»ivtl&<i m th» die«lK. Xt
smmOI^ Unsik aJbtmt tkt9* grn^ ef •?« rf«ir^ 1N« ntmutes* ^t tte
miXs there liM no «|Kmlts^»£! t# iha ^p^a^lng ef «!»
«ccl<lenti mA It i« stoitUy |asi»lWMl 1^ svtp«3.1<^t that t^ jpartef
i9 |ji^tijrjri«i«3tt t« 8dic»w ti^t it imep»m4 frm^ ^sm *fi3M^fsiimiX'*
tttrikjte^ tiM 4««»ft««d la mitSk mmfmm&l^ yet $^»mmim tl»>-%i Vm
f«JU& t9 e!i»t«'bXi»%i, the zM»^i^ne» es^jsir^^* «ytid s^fis'j^^tlwl.jr &hmm
oa»tPiixitor3r MMSl^i6«R«« <8% tl3* part «f <l909atii«4*
X^ %«at ir^s aiTicieci tAto f «iii* e«M9«^tai^at« Of i»eir«n
li^A« •««& m^ieb rf(n a«»pe«$ til«i ^@,t« t^y ^tres"^":^' ^ f*^ Xans*
9 foi'd't «t^ and 3 f«f^% ^,f*pp imp*.'^i^%i^ liy a sspt^ee rj^ (KS<»88 iMcs
al^eut a ear 3 f««?t ^i^ elms' utiicd?, mm doolid i«i:£! ftfom <)i«i Bide cT
tJw? ly^hftt to the <itkmTm The-y ^asetre ii!tsi!#er«#- fttn tiaa Iwt 1 t# 50
re^^ettiT®!^* Ti^ fir&t »ott«o a^ tl*© f.c<j|j(jtettt traa nfosn ttflMnr
tft. ing %}j» X^st (pptMnl fven hold wa^nr ? t3%e o^i^T^ter lidiSf
|wi«5ji«^ tim »ol«Bn»a.rii8ll* ajnul ooj^^- mr«ir It «*s»i36# fcr- tit sit'^is^ did*
Iii er!i«3r to gs*/ M« iBeeriti|j» f«r ^n^^ttlag?* •* pla^tes tlwj itB.ahiii9
oppf?tfit0 tht^ s^xt lieid tti iMi «»p^i«d» ««i»' s^i%0^ iylag in !)»34
I'i^ld 1^ tlti.t lm% wawfoam^ it ^^r^-^ i& wu> c(Hi:ir$« ef & Git$[t«in»qr
opft]p&ti«B vitl^ irhiii^ 1^ imst h»fe t)6«n fanltii^r*
At €h@ tian t^ i»«oidoiit luniyea^d lO^X of th^ Itoids
«r the ti*9KA MivojrtHRit* inoi»diiie autfMr 7* tu»d 1>»ofi oaviiftd
«8d th^ix' Itfi^totoo mm liUU off* ^ben relf* tiM opoyato^* oiar
far«» hio 0080 th« bodjr of Oi^bson lying in hold huhAmht 7 bo
taddttsiir t»topi>od t!io Muemstmnt ondi tsiotioaia^ to tlio idiooinMii
""ynamt ^iw dtood iMor htAA wmanr :3d« foint^d into maiSMsr ?• to
nftdtdi .)!^7«K0 tiMi «o»t« A aSu»rt tino h&fttr^ this ::ifii»o lu^ o^olHta
«-3*
H^ 3ite«n tibmt puULiag «3» ^w luMuitKssis over hdl4» i» Hit f tost
oMvaartflMit «»« «a9t||64. HMm i^fnne 34»»t &&w Mimtm Tmt%t9 %3m
$^ociidc;ni the iatt>07 tmui gnttin^ ir««»<ljr i4ii pudX (m Mm covomi atnl
mfi siim<ii»j; 071 the «l^%«iaiiA iii4^ «r tli« b««it mHOp llNi <to«k
«9l»^it0 hold flMiitfetr 7*
both o«3LlM iby jplsURtiff • ^^^vmiU) i«etlfi®4, ^mA it wi^ «st &i9m
airpMr gMs on tiMi »14a aeast to t^ doclc «hiHr« thtar asr* wtrkiiifft
tSmt it im» faslDidldoii to $o «a ^^e^t »id«|^ suod tbmt tlnsx^ wtty«
»l4Pia» Ml tlw 1»d«i.t« ^lioli itisyo .n^Krwi^ f^^mm tiMr lukt<^» wmw
bding put (m* siTtKs iiotise to th^-t of f««t« ^Miit«if«r l»4 boon
d02««(oo4*» 99«Tteft» ojq^rioaoe It «|!^oy»4 Um% ho h«i tio«n
OB the hoti,% th^t y»»r fron I'^lt. to iiO¥«»BA»«r« tlto msRlii In «hiili
tlw ft««idi«iiit httj^^onodt umA th»t ho lsitk4 «&($r||ft of tho imtoii tm
ih ;t ooo^^lon oad «i»» tho oa^ foiraom at tha tint on %«3t l» th«$
p^rt of the bo<^t« If he w&» psm^d into th« ttoi^ «duUo o to n tft i mt
ott tho do<^ eide of tho ipooool in & rOadtioB viioiro ho ni^t ho
tutvttok l9sr iho pAOoiBiil *o3jMRi»oaitaui*» ^th iiho«io »of<3M»fit« «bio foyjr
rmtiiro of hio 'Ikitioo isw^o iiigt faialiiiKr» h« not imly w&» vloi»tine
«k xuio of which ofiid «i«BO sKfo him ttotifl«>t hat Oiannot ho »aifl
to h«fO hOfl» ^utosroifiing duo tmim tune hio o«n a^#l^t tuol m^n aii»
^e@tiott<i.hiy {^i^ilty of eostrlbutory nofiiicpMO*
^oif ia msy (ihs^m ^ msXigmif^ ouataiaod ^ tho
pre$f • ¥heif« mue bo OTi4«ii«o to oia^toiB ths oh^^v^e «i asogXii^at
o«eisst]piioti«B« or BoftXi0s»r}«o in f^lure to v&m Oihoon oT the
i^isrotiiioh of tho '*oioHi»OholLl'*« Tho crono mA "oioa^ohoU." o«uJUI
ho ooott frmk oToisy »«rt of th» oooh, sxi& eortft^uay A®foa4«a*
11^ imdoy 80 l^tea ^ty to vteym oihsoa e^ on obvionoTlBSIiait
to tho wfk wilit t^lia* ho onot h«»o hooMi ««ifOo.;iiito4* mA tlwat
-4*
U«9 to m^m^^ t% t^pmtttf too* \^.% m» e^?mpm%m omjiU mt
•tt the d9<sJc oid« &t tlM %»Att «li«Td ua<p«esti<mi^b^ lie hJsA Kft
twAiiMtMi io l«« «»)& «ibGi3r« let Umi m^^3»m»m «f £UL& ititjr te
mmad not W tt»a^e^4 t« Iw* flw 93r»of ^An&& laaigif f ioi&st %e 3o*
to iiio« lli^t tSmmt wek& m mmt^ ^&eU6«a. «»aj»t]m-irti«a «tf Mw
wtMihtiw »ir setltieS ftl* ^pAj'^iy^ it*
l>«f«al«»t offdrdd ae '^vidkeuM «ad &t «IN» e«»oJiu»l<»3
chT yitt «iriil«iMNi msOmA f«r «tt i]U»txust<N& v<nr4.l6%t '^ii«lt ife Utink
ttlimld iuim 1M»6» iiv«ii» At anar nut* tto TeiJNtitft' ia «4$»iii»t Vm
mmki9is% w«i^t ^ i3m evt^Msum^ » qp«»»tiQii ^eo^sitaj^Lijr pr&umtnA
y^ %h£s r^SSima t« Sfftmt iDiH ii»ti«»*
A«««r4iaisX^ tiid 4udp»nt isW Ims r«»v%ir«»<t with a £ixid*
isatt of f«et*
wmmmm tsm fibb^^ici ^ fact.
-5-
imzi
^xs^w& ^ wwit
m find tibflfrt sm*«XX&»%§ iitmm^tBin ^%»&l -ammst*
«ad th&i the ^^rnktsksmA^ Wmmoi Ui.'^mgg wm @»lli^ df &«H^il>iit9qr
Appetite,
337 - 25597
ARTHUR 1)« Lomy,
▼8.
STAKVOGD, TAYLOR & COIOPANY,
App«l|ant
APPBAL VROK
:• CIRCUIT COURT,
COOK COUNTY.
2191.^- 651
^iDiHG justice; BARKBS
fiaSLIVERSD THE OPlJ^ION OF THS COURT •
Plaintiff Lord brought suit a^^ainst appellant and
Xdwin Saith Hodgman on the conmen oounte, an account stated,
and a special count for work and serrices in and about the
selling for the Old Ben Coal Company its bond issue of |750,000«
JUdgnent was rendered against them on a finding by the court*
The evidence shews that defendant Hodgoan was in the
eoploy of co-defendant Stemwood, Taylor & Oojopany, of Chicago,
a dealer in investaent securities, and that in such of its
transactions as ho took part he received a certain perce^^ntsge
of the profits, but had no general authority to act for it,
each transaction standing *en its own bottom** with reference
to terms and his authority therein. It appears that he was
authorised to continue negotiations, already begun by tho Ties
president of the coiapany, to effect a sale of said bonds to a
Chicago firm. But he abandoned them, going to How York city
for some purpose. ^Ihile there he receirod a letter from the
coiopany stating that the Chicago firm had declined to purchase
and adding "you are therefore to offer this proposition wbererer
you see fit.* This was the only express authority given to him
in the Toatter beyond his specific authority to negotiate with
the Cloicago firm, and the record discloses nothing in their
relations or conduct, before or afterwfixds, from which any
implication as to its extension or enlargement wcxild arise*
♦ '• 0,' sj^l \:K«qja©0 XaoO nji'l bZO erU toi ^^rUi.
;ix aw,!,- turn: 1<ib :^f\At ewor? .) *jD«yI*ivy i»rJ7
■ioX^«'i' ^lboowH«*^> «.'i >n '■:.> -00 io -^coXqpgpf
^rfiin^o'soq sU&ifa © Aav. /I J-jinci ^09^ or£ .is caDiJoi>att«'xi
.'0-'.j»'x»1;£>' .TfiO 3ii no** st«i.*'''ti>'J ' rio£i'0.-;en»ic^ £fae«
^ile in New York he met appellee > Lord, also a broker,
and acquainted him with the proposition. On his starting to
Philadelphia to present it there Lord suggested that he call
on the firm of Cassatt & Coo^any of that city. Hodgman presented
the matter to that firm and it subsequently closed a deal for
the bonds, allowing Stanwood, Taylor S: Company one per cent
commission on their par yalue* IjOibs time after the deal was con-
summated Lord presented a claim to the latter coiqpany for a
conimission or coiapensation for his services, which were entirely
limited to suggesting Cassatt & Coapany as a customer for the
bonds, he doing nothing further to promote the sale, stanwood,
Taylor & Coagpany had no direct dealing with Lord and gave no
special authority to Hodgman to esisploy his services in the matter.
Vihile Lord and Hodgman differed somewhat with respect
to what took place between them, on which Lord bases his claim
to an agreement for compensation, yet what was said or done between
them is immaterial so long as Hodgman was not authorized by
appellant to engage the services of a sub-agent. /Whatever may be
Hodgman* s liability, if any, it is not a joint one with the company*
It is almost too plain for argument that under such circumstances
the limited authority to "offer the proposition* wherever Hodgman
"saw fit", did not confer upon him authority to en^loy a sub-agent
for that purpose, ( Poggett v. Green « 254 111* 134; Bondwell v.
Howes . 2 H, Y, Supp, 717*)
Equally untenable are the contentions of appellee that
the conpany ratified the arrangement between Lord and Hodgman,
and that a retention of the benefits of the transaction renders it
liable. Stanwood, Taylor & Company cannot be held, without some
subsequent affirmative action on their part, to have ratified that
of which they had no knowledge until after the consummation of the
-iOi L»f:-
CfXiJ
« .f>00wJ'i < tiu
» «?; ii fit) ftoicijiiiaiaon
■■■: sai^'-P-*"' '^^O^'itfe Oil ■'
. • - .. ft? II «<I«?JS
•;»v.-. . . . .>H
»imd'sr:
CO
«3«
deal* While Hodgman su'bsequent thereto took up with the coopany
the matter of Lord's clfi^ia it nerer e^ressly or impliedly re-
cognized the same or his authority to enter into it, and haying
■ade no contract with Lord it was not bound by its silence and
disregard of his claiai. Bat, as said in Carroll v. Tucker . 21
H, Y, Supp, 952, quoting from 1 i«, & Sng. F^o. of Law, 39f>i
"Where the sub-agent has been ezoployed without authority, and his
acts are afterward ratified, he can recover no ooagkensation trcm
the principal but oast look to the agent •**
The coBS>any*8 deal with Cassatt <% Company being utterly
dtiitinot and separate from any unauthorized arrangement Hodgmon
may have made with Lord, the dootrine of liability froa retention
of benefits of the transaction has no applic;ition here*
Nor can the latter recover on the theory that he was
the procuring cause of the sale. His mere suggestion of Cassatt
& CoaE(pany as a probable purchaser did not entitle him to a
cosanission ( Rees v. spruanee « 45 111* 308, 311) and cannot be
deemed the efficient, procuring cause of the sale.
It therefore follows that there being no liability
on the part of ^tanwood, Taylor & Coj^any, the judgsaent aust be
reversed, and^ as the ease w- s tried without a Jury, a Judg-
ment entered here with a finding of facts different from those
Ic^liedly found by the court below*
There it no evidence on which to base a claim under
the common counts or a stated accomAt.
RKTiiRSED WITH FUTOIHO OP fACTS.
Gridley and Matchett, JJ**, concur*
r
•taTSyt.^
-fc
foiaai
-4.
337 - 25597
FXKDZ»a OF 7A(^S«
W« find as ultiaate facts that there was no o<m-
tract, express or lulled, betirten appellant, Btanwood, Taylor
ft CojEipany, and appellee, <\rthur o. Lord, and no contract
"between the latter and co-defendant Bdwin Smith Hodgoan, to
which said appellant was a party, and no ratification by the
latter of any contract between said Lord and said Hedgaan,
and nc stated account between said Lord and said Stanwood,
Taylor & Cnqpany, and that said Hodgman had no suthority from
said vStanwood, Taylor & Cosqpany to enter into a contract with
said Lord for the latter *s serrices in and abc^ut the sale of
the bonds in question, and that said Lord was not the
efficient or procuring cause of said sale*
an JMsft s&:.
VQi-d- - ?:,<:;
aii^lv 9a i)Hl^ i^"'
v«ii i»xjMr lia
XSK)0'»q,.
832 - £5489. //
Dr. JOerPH B. D«L«,
MRS. T. J. HTMAI,
MiniTCIPAL COtJFT
0? OHICAOO.
219 I*A* 651
m. JUSTICE GHIDLET dellvertd th« opinion ©f U« o^urt!
On Jf'jiuftry 6, 19X9, plaintiff, a phyaioleai, »p«olftlUing la
•b8t»trlo» and gynooology, brought suit la the Municipal Court of
Chicago agalnPt d«f«iid«nt to rooovtr for th« r« «onabl« ralut of
•idloal e«rvlo«8 r«nd«r«d to defendant's aarrlod daught«r, Mrr». Pi,ul
>umfia, during tht Bwrnthi of S«pt««b«r m<X Ootob«r, 1917, at
4«feBa«it'» r«quo»t. Th« obuet w»*» ht'srd bofore th« oourt without
ft jury. »o efl4«noe w»9 introduced by d«f«nd^.Bt. After htaring
plaintiff* tvldtnoo tht court, od d«f«nd«nt'« Botloii, found th*
Ittuee ag&ln«t plaintiff md •nt#r«d judgsont ag&ln«t hi» for oo»t«,
from which judg^ont ho apposlod.
from tho t«»tlmony of tho plaintiff and thr«« othor '^Itnoteon
Oftllod in hie boh&lf tho following faot© in 8ub»t«not apposr: In
8«pto«bor, 1817, Mr. P^ul Pumollaallcd Pr. irthur loowy, a phy»iol«n
residing in Oftk Park, Chicago, to attend hit wlfo, who «ao lit aa
avanood eta|t of prognanoy, WhlU Dr. Lo««y ««• attondlng h«r in the
»*ct Suburbtm Hotpltai In 0»k P»rlr, sh« dovolopad kidney trouble and
>•» condition beoaaro eerlouc. About thla tint Dr. Uewy had a
ocaTereatlon at night over the telephone with hit patlwit'a »other,
*M defendMftt. Re detailed hie patient's eerloue condition and what
jPWbubly would h&YC to be done, and eald th»t he deal red to call another
|P^yclolaa, Dr. DeUe, If hi a eervloee could be prooured. To thle
•tateaent the defendant replied In aubetance: "All right; go aheii;
^«rc no expenee; get the beet phyetoian you poealbly can." On the
'•llowlng day at the hoeplt?! Dr. Loewy h*d another ©onverestlon with
^ defendant, at which he again epoke of the aerloue condition of hie
PMlcat and the probable outeoac of the oaee. The dtr^adant eald "thKfc
■y^ tiA^^
■^r-
ieiurn
.mtmtt— ^M»91^
a.
•he and ^'' Hy«aa would have to stand back of the young people la thle
instance.- On the .a.e day Dr. DeLee, residing at 6038 Illie Arenue
in the eouth part of Chicago, and harlng been .u«moned by Dr. loewy,
oalled at the hospital and had a oonver.ation with defendant, during
Which the latter said: -Doctor, I want you to leave no etone unturned;
I want you to leare nothUg undone to safeguard ay daughter.- Plaintiff
thereupon went up to Mrs. Pumell's roo« and exa«lned her. After the
exaaination plaintiff had another conversation in the corridor with
defendant, at which Dr. Loewy and Mr. Pumell were creeent. Plaintiff
detailed to defendant the very critical condition of Mre. Purnell, and
-uggeeted that she be removed to the Chicago Lying In Hospital, on the
eouth side of Chicago, in order that plaintiff might give her «ore
attention than he could if she remained In the lest Suburban Hospital,
Which was far removed from plaintlff»e circle of work. To this
auggeetion defendant assented and further said: -I don't want you to
leave anything undone that will preserve my daughter.- Mrs. Pumell
was removed to the hoepltal mentioned, and on her entry defendant,
although there were other rooms to be had, selected the most expensive
room, and again told plaintiff that he ehould -leave nothing undone -
and should give her dau^ter the -best of all possible medlolnea.-
Plaintiffe testimony further disclosed that he there attended and
treated Urn, Pumell many times, and that, t hou^ the case presented
■any complications, he was suo.eesful in hie efforts and that the
IWes of both mother and baby were saved. There was also testimony
to ths effect that the usual and customary fee at the time for such
8peoiali9t«e services ae were rendered by plaintiff was at least «1000,
aad that plaintiff had submitted a bill for §750, which remained unpaid.
In 31 Ruling Case Law, p. 412, sec. 55, It le said: -The
general rule, that where a person requests of another the performance
•ervices the law implies a promise to pay the reasonable value of
• services performed, has no applictlon in the case of a physician
^•ndering professional servlcee to a third pereon. If the relation to
• patient of the person who requests the services is not such as
t- ■::
t'iiiii.^i
«i ••Oj^y
;4 m^ *•.;• .?a«i^«»<
iarportB th« legal obligation to provld© th«a. The authorltlee
gener&Uy support the broad proposition that a atere request hy one person
to a phyeiolaa to render eervloee to another to whoa the person aaklng
the request Is under no ohlig^tion to furnish aedlcal oare raises no
implioatioa ot a promise to pay for the servioee. x x Aooordlngly,
it has been held that a physician may not recover from a parent for
eervices rendered to an adult daughter at the request of the parent."
Theee principle » are euetained by the following oaeee: Boyd ▼. 3apriin<f^on .
4 Watts (Pa.) 347; Crane v. Baudcuine . 6S I?. Y. 356; MoGulre v. Hughes .
807 N. Y. 516. It Is further said In the text book mentioned (p. 413):
"However, aaedloal service requested by one person in behalf of another
and furnished to that other often gives rise to a oontraot Implied In
fact between the phyelolan and the per eon requesting the service, x x
For example, although a promise to pay a physician for his servloea le
not iBplled from the mere f jct that a father oalle him to attend hie
»lok eon, who Is a man of mature age, yet, if the olroumetanoee or
aonditlons s-re euoh at to lead the phyoiolan to believe that the father
Is undertaking to pay for the eervleee to be rendered and to oharge the
father with knowledge thereof, he is liable under an Implied oontraot."
(Citing, Morrall v. Lawrence. 303 Mo. 363). In the Worrell oaee, the
oourt eaye (p. 373): •»« do not go with the counsel to the extent of
holding that a father calling a phyeiolan to attend hie adult son cau
t>« rendered liable only on an exprese oontraot, because we hold that
the olroumetanoee or condltione may be such ae to lead the phyelciaa
to believe, and to oharge the father with knowleage that the physician
<ioe8 believe, thst the father Is undertaking to pay for the eervloee
to be rendered. Whilst the calling of a physician to the bed slAe of
^ elok msn has In the nature of the case Its own element e of exception
to the general rule, yet it Is not put so far In a ttlase by iteelf ae
to exempt it entirely from the category of Implied oontraote. Whether
• faotc of a eaee are euoh ae to present a question of whether or not
fU
4.
Mi ef l«»i ir in ill* f^vot* rtli«d on, i«tc«a •>• trtt*« t^«f« 1« nothlnf
!• jufftlfy %lk« laf«y*nof tb« court »11X to d«0ld« &• n suttAr of Inw,
lit if tk«]r ar« tuoh a» th t If er*dlt«4 \h% icf* r«Ba« alji^t or algH
tot X«gitlMp.t«l]r bM dr»»a^t !• » (|u««tie{> of f$dt.* In Salth v.
|tt tcai . 14 Tt* 338j» a pttyoiol^ tottf^t to moovor of «> orothor of m
lii«.^at )>«r»o& for Medio a1 «tt«fi4^noo »n4 norvloo)^ r«n4«rod th« Isttov
&t tho ro^oct of auob brotlioY. Tit* oourt oey* (p. 397): "It ^.iX^p%>Mtt
%k*X ftll iho MTYiooOf for ohiok iho plaintiff brlAgo thlt motion, woro
ptrforaod for tbo brotbior of tho d«ffiad;^Bt;, «)iO^ tliou|)i iao«a«, «»•
liablo tfaorofor, Tho proomt dofoadisat «aa oteilf bo »«do llablo <m «a
orifla^l «ttdtrt<^kiBg. Tbo torvlooo «or« not l»«aofJlol»l to Mm, ead ka
!»• undor no l«gml obllgAtlen to pay for ih««i, tmloto «^<m »a oxprooa
aadart king, or Wfkff ii im M XilEll \qlfry?<^ J[£2& llUL f4lfn?f JlMl
it va« ik» intoatloa of fe>«tb p^rtioe tbitt tbo pl^ietiff obould porfora
tha a«rviQ«i( aad tba doftadtmt ahouXd p>ty hla tllorofor.* In I ^rio|i v.
Jaookaea. 113 HI. Ap|>. 5|t9, J^oo&ooa, ^ phyalol^ ^d aurgaon, auad
fiorioa for profoaaiofval oorvioea raadorod in tbo parfora^oo of ■%»
oMratioa for tko roaov<^l of & twaor froa tl»« «%>doa«a of tba wlf* of
Darioa*« aoo. In tlM trial aowrt, » jury found tba laaaaa io f^nvor of
XU plaintiff aad ho bad jadcaoat for #400. TIM Aproll^ta Court for
tka Saoond Oiatriat, bowovar, u»d.^r tbo p^rtlouUr f^otd, ravoraad tlto
)«d0aant m^ raa%nd*d tbo o ua*. Tho oourt oaya (p. 56t> It^lioa oura)
*Tba ralstioa of ^tppalldnt to Wf, Dorioa mae aaob tb'^t aoftathiaa a^oro
^^ A.1III. roaaoat to %ppollo« to roador tba Ptrvioaa ««» nao«aft»r7 la
or4ar to bind *ipall^t. R* iraa aadar n l*g*l obUg'itioa to provld*
*» pay for Madl««l ^ttaadttaoa to »<*. Dorioa, «ad i» bor baab»Bd«a
*baaaoa hla ooaaoat to tbo parfora«noo of tba ftarvloaft, or a^ea ^ raitt«*t
tbarafor, wril; «a aaooai^ttnitd by s proaiaa to psy for tbaa, upon tb*
'•itb of wblob tb« otrYioaa wt^ rondarod !iad but for wfelab tboy would
*•* kai^ Ifoa raadarad, aould not atthoriaa » raoovory. x a Mo partioulsir
f.
form or —i of vord» i» required In »uoh e&««s, but it Bunt %ppe»r fhfut
A p&rty oooupyl&g tuok r«ltitlon» ^9 !^p:« ll«nt ooompltd toward Kre. Dorlon,
rtqueeting or ao<iul4KCi»g in th« »«rvio««i of a phy«lolan, gUg ox 4IA
tba^ whiqh ra gpnably Inaiquttd ^ int»ntlon l£. £sx Xa£ th«gi . ^a
jfhat i ^t y.ts jc unAferttood b y the yby9loi.aP| find for that ye^j&cn tb c ^
•trvlogc woro rgnOgred. •
ItedOT tlM ffrottf of tiM pr«0«nt o<!ii9«j ais dlscloiied truoi th«
tetilaoRy of pl^lctiff '• witno«t(»», a«id in th« llgjitt of tho aboto
•uthoritio*, wo gro 0/ th« opinion th<it th« trial oourt «-»• not wij^rrsntod,
at t)M olooo of plaintiff's o«c«. In finding th« lt«u«»« ag inot
pl^iintiff, and orrtd In entorlng a judgnont ag9lnot hln. 1# think
tbat plaintiff iii&do out « good pri«a f&oio 09«<« of liability ozi tho
part of Xre. Hy«an for th« rt$oo&abl« Taluo of plaintiff* e s«rvio««
roaderod to h«r d«a^t«r, who was ti^rrlfd »iid Htring with hor huab Bd«
Kr. Pun^oll. fhilo plaintiff** «vldono« dooo not dltolooo th^t lfr«.
Hyaao oiacroBfely proaltod to pay plaintiff for tho «»rTlo«t to b« rondarad
\tf hia, «a tbirik th t fron tho avidono* of what Vra. ?ya>m a&id ^md did
•ad othar avidaaoe, an «alA in Bwlth v. fatten, aucra. "it aay ba fslrly
Ufarrtd x x th&t it ^^b tha Intantlon of both p^rtlaa th-^^t tha pl'>intlff
ahould ji^rfora tho earvioes md tha dofaadaat abould pay hla thorofor. "
Tha judgiatat of tha Muniolp^l Oourt la raworaod ^d tha
Oattaa ia raa^mdad.
VtTSMnt A BEMAITDIiD.
BAWES, p. J., and lOTCHITT. J., concur .
3l\
»i
241 * ^5496
OEORQI UEMDli'Ht ad«iPi»trftor
of the £At?.t« ^t r«t« tferidith,
deo«H««d,
Aprjftlattt, ) APPEAL PBOtf
▼ , \ / ) SUPEBIHR COOFT
cracAOO rulvats c^asy, / ) oook oootty.
ApptUee. j 219 I -Ac 6 51
MR. JUSTICE GPIDLET <ltllv«r«d the opinion of th« oourt.
In an motion brought by plaintiff^ a» -sdalnliitriatOT, agalntt
d«fiind^nt to rtoover daMiftd for tb* alleged wrongful destb of Kate
Kerlalth, the jury returned i^ verdlot finding the defendant not
guilty. JudgMnt in inrot of tbe defend^int followed 'ind pl^ilntlff
appeisled.
Tbe aooldent bappened between 7 and 8 o'clook on the evening
of June 3«, 1&17. Tbe deoeseed was struoir by an eleotrlo etr««t o^r,
owned and operated by defendant, on tfllwstukee revenue ne^r tbe
Inter^veotlon of Tfilwan avenue In tbe olty of Chlosgo. Plaintiff
charged In eeparente oount? of bl« deolsration: (1) general negligence
in tbe oper^'tlon of tbe o%r, (3) negligently running It at a high
and dungeroue rste of speed, and (3) negligently falling to ring a
bell. The ualn defenc^e w<tt that the deae«eed wae guilty of euoh
contributory negligence ae barred s recovery.
Mllwaulfee avenue rune in a northwesterly t^nd eoutbeaeterly
direction. Defendant operated iti* street c>re thereon on double
tracks - the o?.»b iMJvlng ©outhea«terly being run on tbe right bsuad
track. Tsl»an avenue, a north «nd eouth etreet, enters UllWHuHee
avenue fro* tbe north, but doee not extend eouth therefrom. Attrlll
etreet entere Milwaukee avenue fron the aouthweet, but does not
extend northeaet therefrom. Frsnoee Place, s north and south etreet,
•nter* Mllwi^ukee avenue from the eouth, but does not extend north
therefro*; It le the next etreet <»outbee«t of Attrlll etreet entering
Milwaukee avenue. Attrlll etreet lee ebort dletsnoe northweet
of tbe west line of Talaen » venue extended aaroee Milwaukee avenue.
2.
and rrano«« Plan* is a longtr <titt8nd« 90uth«aflt of tb« SAtt lin«
of TalBftC f»T«nue llk«wi«f •xtftnaed.
Th« dtoese^d etart«d fro» the north«a»t oorner of iin««iuk««
and Tal««n avenu* tc oro©*? Vilw^uV^c av«nu«. Sh« went *el3wit-wlee»
towarde Franoee Placj©, b«t not on a otOM-w%lk. When ehe reAobed
the last rsll of the ?»eoond traok «h« v^« struok by ^ ttreet onr
•oving in s eoutheaieterly direotlon and reoelved Injuriee resulting
in her deeth. There wae eTidenoe tendlag to <ihow that before
. attempting to croee the ««oond treok ehe did not look to e e If
& or «&» approaching frow the northwest; th^t hdd ehe looked she
oouiu have eeen Itj th*t before ehe reached the eeoond tr*ok the
motorsan rang hie bell and applied hie brake e; but th«t deceaeed
iiave no heed end oontinued to advance iwroedifttely in front of the
on-ocalDg oar.
Couneel for plslntiff urgee s^e grounde for s revereal of the
JudgKsnt: (1) The giving of inetruotion No. 3, offered by defendant,
and (a) allowing to rewin in evldenoe the anewer of the «otor«aa
of the or to j queetion whloh oleRtly called for hie aare
oonclu«»ion.
ft 8ub«itcntiplly the e&ne inetruotion hae been approved by
fevle^lng oourte of thla 8tftte. The po'nt «ade le thjt it ie
framed on the hypotheei* thst deoesead »&w the 03i.r approaching, while
the evlaenoe dleoloeee that ehe evidently did not, tven granting
the point It does not follow th?.t the Judgment ehould therefore
he revereed. After e careful *3Ja«iB*tion of the entire record w*
think thut the jury could not reaeonobly h»ive rendered « verdict
other than they did beoauee of the evident contributory negllgenoe
•f the deoeaeed; thnt upon another trl«l the verdict ntuat
InevltRtly be the eanc; and that aubetantl'?! juetlce hae been don*.
Qnder such olrcu«»t.ince* » judgaent will not be revereed b»o%uee of
POeeible error in an inetruotion, or beo«uee of error in the admieelon
3.
Of improptr teetl&ony whloh ovuid not hav« lnflu«n<?«d the rcrdlot.
(Grg«nup v. gtok«r , 5 0U«. ZQ2, SlBi Hewitt v. Jofie», 72 m. 31S, 331;
rem v.^hlofego City By. Co., 113 111. I.'p^, 381, 393; O^hewann v.
City of Gh loago, S63 111. d9S, S98).
The JudgawBt le affiroed.
^yflFMID.
BARHES, P. J., and MATOHfTT, J., oonour.
iiMiai A*
€trt «r iti^iK
» sX»l
2
T
^. G <i^ J-
flf i^«ii^ <MUIist» it* Mfiir* its «itr ^%)^'tk m$A %%» »i« ^^linrMm*
eittiMi id IHI <»93Ll«et«<S •6i*t&i» uaao^tft iiwtttSJUMHil* «f e^itittX
eod l«Ti«d» {!u'aiMtt««d an* vmfiwwmd la -'ip«ei«4 ''8fl«»«mii% »•• 89
af the Villain («•» cii^} «f ^i%i^ ^^««», is lilii mmm^ eouurt fff
Q»«ia( eciuBty» mA fwtVhMt mwiii'iiiniiflie' ilMK wift ««<li «r t?>tn te
MMttt Of %am fmm tn.% Vim maA ism* m kimm «f W-a:5,at, 1mI«b
«)M«»tliird «r mmiktA. mtm «f Mma^t «i^^^ liitei*«»% UMf«(m» iefl«|i,
a > t»aii ««t MwfitmtA «9«lMi% teftA ViU«@» (Mm citjp) |a aaiA
C)|t^ in tl»W» fMWttia ii!k3tii3l2«Mai|»«
«l» y^UUen tm tkua «r|t «ns fil«4 ill IHHi [> i»r Si«
l«ia« t% U lamiflm mutgt^ in «»li«tj»n«t Utet f«tiUeii» is •
9A9W4 f«i %vA%»gmm far tha (pwliag* wtvcwlMm^ ata^t af pariiaiM
«r Itata a%raa% ana c^ttrUaiiA. Vina vmA i^^aath ihraayaat aYamaa,
la «4a VUXAfiat tli^^t tlw avdlnanM 9i«vi4a4 tinki tlia iffproTMaant
iHotOA %a iKMla* a«l tlai adi>t ^AA tmr^ V iHP»«iaA aanasaannt* la
Ha
.^rU«l« 9 of ^M CItUft (i»l ViUi^s '%et «St Ifif8« ewl la M^^timm
vitlt alt &«% MttlMrisiac tlM ctlvl'^toB ttf »i««ifiA mmntmsnttt inU
tiiBtv ilineifita imMI fl»tkMP|«|»K the l^sueiMe «r Imiuttt ta «aiUcl^it
4|vidifl4 I3mi tkmmwmmwAt into »«>vmi lfi«tHil»®nt», th« ftr«i to %•
pa^}A.9 frmL em& vftrnv Vam ^0timmMim •€ tlw «i0t3««««eiit, tg^nA Urn
b«>iiti<ai Att yti^ fimnitar «^:>uri <»f C(»<-.^k emmtf t9r the i«iry tf «
etat «f a«4d ia|^ay»i0&nt; tluj^t tho««fift«r rndfat iNP«««^Afii« «Nir« luiA
tlizit an mn^mnmmm^ roll v&® f ilL«di thmvim «^. th* »ii«««siiBftitt e«»»
tir&s&a ^ tt ^Ocnnit «at«x>«(i J^^sy % I3t4| thst «n :\99%mtmr ?«
1094, th«> viUiae* rift«»«d 9» isrAimmm ttm «» t^mm «f tt^fodsv to
HRiielp»t« tte eolleotton af ite «»ew»d MMt «i««««ASsig iiwt mlla w n i t t
itr ttalA «8«»»%iia«tt-« t« tiM aamuttt «f |8»90& agnlaat ca«h •f tlw sisc
4l«f«fY*A tn«ifaiB»iit«» «Md bods t* 1i«tMP lnt«v*ii% ikt 6 ^§tut tmnt
l'%iflM« Oftta i a t ifr y HO, X»&4, iN^ing WM ttMN 90 <y^ arif^Hr th« mUMI
^iMHkaaMefit& flilt «r nhiiSi mO^ b«nd» imp» pnyviMA iWtfMi %• dMV
[i»ti«tt«%l y^^t tMilA wnUmbm 9iwvide4 tHai arid bond* aJkouU not
Itt tita iMggva^Kl* tiM flMOUMl <^ the d^sfanwd l»st()XiaK»ftt«»
idMtad %a divided itit« «^» Meay s«riaa e^a tlMM «««« d«i#finred ia»
•i«U»e«%tt, and atkoolLd 1mm tmssmtm nittMAiid to v«9>««*»t Vm
tBimfe^ tft aeeiiM «bHsr»«i» toid tiu^t «l»a vui»ea aA#it t%«m<m 9k9
[lints at ita vptUn at the tlMi al* «i^ tmmtl i/mfmaA «t laiarvat,
» di«ni* iioUae iMliig «iT«ii In m d«tt|«nai«d tmnmP^^l ^^^
[l|r aalA — 8#aiiniat tlm nSLlaga «f i^aj« fU4«a ma naaae «<! («itli
amunia «r Mttty not nwr in cfuautlon) m the em ^^ad 7th
IstlaAlMmtss, f&r lata "A* and '♦C*', «h» sum tf i&34*85, i«d far
•9i»
WilU ^mmtitn Hm ai» of t'39lO»^» «p tan f%al mm ist :|42H»»S9
«ai 9MAI ttffcid iit0ieair^«^t$ Umt »» n^^^rtHP^^tiofi fwr t2w i^ammt
«r ssIA mam witli iji%«xf«i»t li»^ <vf^ 1mm muM lor (M^iid I^UUUet, mt
l^ar lift «n»cs«e<^«r« ffeiqi city «r ^arlc Bi<ifii>« and Uu.i% •tAiA mam 9^
mmy with int«iirei«i ««?« utiJiI 4ltt« «iii ttf^iiid tiy »0^ <'i^ titoi
l>eUU9a»r I* Miv 1du» :U«^ i«»U«r mA «ia»r i»f «ix imwIb f «r Hot
e^M!^, mA «f ti»» lNMi(«« f «r W^m «««% all dg^<l ^^9l«HiMnP 80« ISH
all liHMHid Igr miM V]|U«0»t 4r««ii« Ia1«9«i9i^ ett 9«r ««nt i»«r mmm»
mA ibU iini«l<l| (fhi nwrtMP mA «Mri»it of «««ii iMmd. ^tm teaftMll*
ttE^t 9itt 0f #tl«li it l» pnand^ui, utaftt Ui$9mnsi%t If iinr» li£ui %••»
WAAffmi tim. mKumt vt iftt«t««t <bi« en 0«M!iJbt «»« «@t-f«rtili In d««*
i«dl}s thi!^»% l^Uti«t8»r Iji «4se tiMr Ha^ikS, iM&Air mA mmm of a
<8«riai» vmxmmX^ lo. i^« of lti»taXliBQiiit So* 0« leaved Iqr 8«4iA ITIllaflt
tmA da«»d -.^iiiwiftev ;S4« 1894, twt |S!t3«19 %9 IGUitt«iE ii« Mtls^ «r «r<Miv«
Ddth lHt«ro«t ;%% 6 jM^y omt por iftoam tbttvean frtm .3^Xy l« xe9$;
«IA ^hMi% msM TUJU^gs C»9» lt>3f) hum fwiXttA «^ aegleet«4 to «93a«<it
l«ft«d mA nMommmA nfffn^Okn^ prlTntv ^rc^jjArt^ &e ^&id apisQial. «««•»»»
P MMi 9V«o«*4lBft« »atf t2i£tt isnid sum ie titiXS. a»« §mA vsam^^ ^ «^^i<l
'-11^, jtnd titbit 1^ ree&xin thiireaf ytfUiiiMKtr IstcMi ast r4i<i«iTft4 tlMl
•anwrtut <kM} hta «pan si<iA htmSm wmA nwrrnttt*
Or SmuLorf 6« ifid, aA.X of 1^ AfifwAmOm mmmA in Vm
p«Ut&oii fiXM « ceMrall dniMyrnr tli»f«t»« >'^l»a»^«iiUy Urn oatrt,
■fUr «V!0ttM[it «f •««itt«tt3t» ewr»a«4 th* ^emirrex'* mA ^m F«%fiiaf7
86» 1^>1&« mi$A A^^mtAeatUi ti^knti 0m timi— r*
IR 10m first 9Mrc«iN9Wh 9f tim mmmf %}m 4itfeiii«itts
ftdMt llMit ttw «vdijMn«t f 0r tlse iamrftmm&t wm v»^A lor tlHi
Vtu«||t m y«lHPtt xy ^o, liM»4. tImi mAimmm U mt out in fuix»
MM it ii^i««» t]h»t tlM «U«i»U«iie «f ilHi iK^Utiim roii live «ber«»
t* &r« 0u'Nit/inU<illy o»irr^et»
'>^y --fll^r.v^ ^IZ u
-4«
t^aiS p.iS592!W(»% il!»a!ff«af %v0fii iitft^ ^m\ m?M %y 3»td -'tl^Uise m -^t^, Intt
l?wy 'i^Hsjr tiafc:^* s^t|!l tjii'^^snflwsit* aa^ *^ :i««l iwii5?«.lt4*
S«i tl^ 6W pisSMI^^ ^M» ^'«ft»«lilltil «!dNl% l^et tM^r l^W
ii»% ^ta<9e|ii4 «yiM ;fit^4ait» ftf aHii&»g wwj i % » ft||»lii»t ^I'fiMNi j^^L'^^rtir
Ci%3r it i'^ n9% %i»^m^ «9»ii aaiy «ir Haw <i<sf«iiA»ii%«»
Hi tiw f ^ '^mKi^^^s^ t^ d^jf^ioasi^ sf^r t!^t m^ writ
^9%tti9mw H&e tai^B ,<r»ili^ ^ l>%<3i*i^ la not ^Vi^i-^QUtlii-S M«
•i»
Xft tlw 9«ii jjg' i l g niHl Wm ^itHmAtm* aU««k, cms a fwsMM
vliir «l» writ idMiilLd mt iMmm, ^^t llb» wdlfumtt tmm nit Mytoify
tlMt Milium, fltifidPttotev* lo«c4iiijr ««& di»«(ap|yi^Uiii tf tlw pp<»(i«««
tjBo oraiMMM l9 V9t<tt «M<t ^ r««f»«i tam9m9t tht eeunlgr «i»tft
dOtpiirvil iM 4itHMi«%lttii itt tti« Mi^ln»i;;U«gi 9»MM»«<liilg»| MiA IHat
Tol^ £i«a aaMJEPftiraealil**
SB tl» lotb iMTisrapli Hie ^«^&tD&tm^ In «ulictflifn«e «lii«i,
a* ft fitrtaiiftir v« .«c«i fii|p Il» wirik% t/bmAA t»% Imam^ Iteii >«tiil««Mr
on ^(Uly X3t IM9, f jU«<l •^««tA«iiis In ftalA CMstmlgr emm^^ mtm
ia>iai0<iiton of ti«o emmiy «3«u«N3t«r f»r |4i4pMi^ «iMi mf^m 00 sain
for t]»e a@iiii(ii'@»t &tii inHMnUsf^Mi of ilw mmmmml^ Ui>Hm^ agetiost
wrtftlM vs'^^^Hr of soAd 9»tiU«iit»; tiiy^t MikiiA ^i^mt^^m (]Mitttifl«Mr|
Mt Up f iiw ot^«<rtioiM etifiM^ktiiK Hkm velid&tir «f lb* i«^j:;4l«^^itlMi
*
\$MiUmm iMlas ttt r«ar«bt te f^^%X), «ml fausr dtfcMar #l!i|«6a«Mi attMlP*
' ftftS th« vuli^tr «r ti» Ari^iR^ €!<!iiriVBi^it&l»i 9V»«ie<lia8« Ml ttft
i|wi»pMiit <nt«v«4 tb»y*lii {•miA 0i4%«Umm til«9 !Ml«« Mi tm^ im
ftoU)t Hukt «f mM iMit MiitliMi4 ili^»«ti«Mi Hii fi^ •l)iJ««tlMi
WMi thai *|ii Hw pKftiW«i<Hftgi for lli» eoitf'infifttiftB «f tmH nm^UA
tmu9vmu% tim erdisMMMi m^wpIkIiib —iA imvfmmmt did oit wp^eltf
[tlpliflHiiiiUiatt Mil «M f er •t^W 9«4tMMi ir»iA» «Ml tlW touH ««<|id««4
W ^ujpiisdietlMi l» rntiM p p (ia« e<li«g»*| Hifti mytd •«A< •shim MHliif
lift to %• l»a>« «a MlA «9Mo«1^i«iM»» tttii aooiitgr ooiiri* m mmK^mr 90*
[ Ii09« •tttMiA CM ar«np» nvoft aMtloft of »i»i4 omMtgr ooSLl^otigr* an w i i i ii
^'"c* JHi JKft iMt A' ^ ^^'^ ^* ^l^^^^« *)* mt^mf lli«x«t«r«r« otttttftA
«>6»
emxvt nt«t«ia»d ft»i4 Al^teittiMi to Vm mXXmetim •f »£4d ftflii
«li»f«r«v«« Ijgr re .««i «r tte far@^i«K ani Utovmim 9104 0^wtim
UimHtUmw) 9mmsA waM mm^ wmt% to i^tty itifiii «r<i9jr tmA to
miotols iito OHM o^ooiioBo, pvafUmX^rl^ mU ftli oti^ootion, nm
«mtmA«K^ ooy tlmt i>ttlti«n«r Ho vrntUxOm^ «m oH«w«4 f i»«
tiUm «» p«Uti«t in tiM^ mmm. mA «i«Mm« oi»i oontoMiiB, ••
1» mn dtoo ift tho 9eii%iott 1amjm$» tixm^ tlist ottiH tr-^l-mmto io
ViiUd« «ci4 tiuit tfao ooiftoooHwsio iiml ptiaayie ift^M»fi%» iovi«4 in tho
eei«ty msmt of co^ o^iii^. « « llMi lovyli^ «r tihiiii mo immoA
tt9on 01114 OF^lMsMMit ovo o <H»tot a »|g or oitforoo^Mlon o«A tli. t
a^MMMifto twtmiw oaif Utot «of«r Kiaoo 1^ mtJty «r oiii« oMor §e
t*« eoKKtf oiwvt YofUoAng ^vMMPMit, «io city wf J*arfc H|||«o, ito
•^ ' ' anA oil owMoro of friTato i»^{)Oi^ o«ooo«tip ly i«ooon
ti»i««^*. Hoifo ooatftttoftidjp jmmt^mi tm tvootod oi^ta ovoor of oow
ft a« ote^aut^ljf MAI and Yoi4, otidi tiMfofooo not pr«$orlj
Of tforoo«*»o,*
|; im imm UtH 90VAgr«9i^ ISm ibsfmOmaU oUofO, oo 11 f^^rUm
t9wm y^ Itoo lOPlt i0amX^ not ioouo* tlukt no ^mmaU t9W %im yw^
fonowM or tuo «otlo» oaA oS^^go^ Aitioo ootigitt to 1m» m^mm^
IW MhSO II901I tiM 4«f«MbilU« or OittHMT of «MM, ppgOV tO tHo
U tho laiik 9a«og»»«ii tko 4«f oiMfaMito ollii^ tihot in tho
>f«oo»t f ioooi f^m or tiM C4tar or i>«aift MAm. «■* r«» ootora
f»{^ pout, t^ riMttoUa ooMtition itf oaid aiiy Imio Iw<»i oaiii
ito ttitgr ooutteU Ibfio »OTto« mA 1m«i ««o«^Uo« to lovy tfao
U u«lt or tax yopooovllod Iqr l«o to «0 oonto on omIi «ioo ^T
f
1
ttU actual «oa ttoa»«i«f3r «iqN«Mti lUMl U«»iUUiM tf «Im City, «iii«
tlu^t tlM aa^iuil «r Mi«h wniitmii i<ivy »t m liiw Pterins tlM$ l4tf|
MteJlwy €r ycwM li«» %M» «i^fi«i«»t» Mv Will it IM aif fiei««t i»'
of nil 6««ie4 •m^MHMM «mA UtS^$M%*i»9 of •<944 ^ly| «•« iat4:4 ly
r©«»i»a Mtmiot Urn immmBm 9i yi» wfgt m mm>^ tmr wmtd ^mU
m mam fenNUftdy w^m itiU aiy mA Om ^fmmif93m Hy «^4ltt|^ i« tt«
MMR^ nKPnrpyi&UAti Hm nMWittt tf «Imi mmmtmm^ and 9ii%(U« HoMKHLt*
haw %o otM ittt «r «Aid aaatiwnt abety.
OR K«u[^«ilt IS, i^9» Hhi mUUm^w fUm& « t^nftio^Mii m
til* 4tti and 9^ 9«vii|^»Ki^ «r im^A ummm mm « «MMra 4«i»ww U
law a.iA, ««i, i^^, sth, 9t3i, letfe. um ^ind xam tmtmmm* ^ft«f
iVipiMMii, lh» •mn mk»%a$tma mm iSmmmnm t# ikU oT »^m lm% mm^
tiMtfddf • Oa *^ii % tu% m mnum «f %3tm f^tumem^ fmr i$m
9t^%ltUlmT^, t^ «»srt os^a^jwt ta«*t p@tiUo»ir»8 ^imnm'^ te Hal
«rtslitoi «««i«r m%miA m m ikumamtr %q »bM iimr»tlTW>ii», iKHt« «f«Mr
tm ^^m&tm» w»fw 9ikmm f^ariamt ^im la «fei>eh t» igmml, On '^wrtUl
la ihi«ii tiMT t maUA mAw w^mfmik XWk tlM»^»«r. «b itaQr Sitt*
int* Hw aottrt M«tft|a»4 9«UU«aMni «NHMHfa ^MBnnrvF «Im»wW»
wi» ««f 4MMUMIS •l««tlag i« ttmA ir tlMiiP ©lunMHpa imh «i«llala«
«• AtrtlMv «aMiA Um t«ni» tlw ««wH «r<s«vt4 fH^t |tt4«MKt Ini
•Bt«]«« fay y«iiitaatr 1191a liiji 4timanmmm m ^ mm ter
«8*
tlMM wan a im&fiam ^af •!• m ^uvy ttpftiri Hm i»»««}f of f a«| auMr
lor Ite 4tli iiiiA dlh IMVKtfffni^ 9€ 4tftm)lkm^* IMn«iXMil aMWMy MM
tbat htt mm ttm mgmat «f IImi 'btmiSm mA imrnem^ mi Mit f Mrih Ir
(iff«f«4 ir ^ua^n^mUf* ^ i»dtim of ^Utiefi»r Urn er^vatt IttvtiiMltA
«1M iQNi{ii«l «iMiiia«MVl« fiM fdilB&id iMMMflts ^% f«3r«li In lii« pitiUon
of %bi». \)9aAt$ emA wafvm% tlMfttln em% fmftl^ iijp#i« iii«ii«h %hts« mp» mMr
Ai« MiA uioNUlA Mkrtain miMi 9€ mmmyt tiom^AMne- t« Hi* fwiMr miA
efr«0t t3M»vs«r« to lAw jsftvimi «r tlm iai»tvii«tt«Bi s«t«n«Mii« oV
Joctedf oMA t tMM W Wpt i Hm ^its^ir voDnstioiS tlM» ««jr(t|.^ M» aiiw«%edg
Mid HlO lU^aiTHiflt i|»p»«l«4 f VMi f OilOMMl*
l^ior to ftift 43»tsy ^r %b» eoveity emiyt of ^Hm gtUHi Hift JttttL order of
x»)oMiM9r 90« l.»6i^ lioiA mum^ m ^iioy ^» Ili99« owfto^od th^ la^
of (ho ^l^ittstimm «f «b» #lii|o«i|««r (p«1^ti«iwri lo o(i&%»liii»a «Mft
tlukt «i>t:iUof}UMi ttsp ituBttfrns^ i« inifli««4| MiA lliat» owir »lji09 Hw
oiti|f ««;Mfi«ii» MM «(U «r iio «frie|ja» i^fettott 4»tr &» ony ^mr wmlmtm
U %km MiUo^tiott or onrorMMMBi of oiioolia mhhi'«m«»I»i mmtmimel^
votfMNfaMI it !«» tsioly lutmA dttty to £'«rr«.^4R fvMB «lw Mir«c<«owM(% of
oalA iMtoooMMiMito* oT m» 9«r% HMn^ooTt siift tlksi mi^isov iism plskiMUiti
HOP ^^1^ otteoar fovooMt tsG&tu «Im ■eiMiwiiOBigfc ^ tisi* Mat» iteY* f«*
<|lMi»to<^ lli^ Ciiigr of i^ark Ui4«6» «h9 SN^^etfo ;9f ito fii«|r eotmoU* Mr
Miy «f Us «aTioia3l«« to oitforoo Ibo eo^lootlon of a&i« i£bo»»«<3S}Mil»*«
So tho aMMdod 12t3i 9Mf«4(»i«ik cdT «bM oaswnr t« e^st foi^Ch tited fflPoMMI*
Iwitiwii Mtf oxtcMilMMo «r th(» '?ttr to? ttHct fUtmSk yma^ %n!»t •^^
10 T •-•>/■. TO
mljim
m* yii.f£tm mmm u^^sd^mm im^» mmim^ a? rm emu.
HOHX* li^l £U« 3^C!l» lf€')| &aA t\m -^l^m t& g^vmrand lif ih» soMi
^f^^fn^M^ ^myHimnwf *- riii&M \\^w^ ^^-t ^^ ^^* ^ms* ^m.)
"Oft A«iti3ra«ir II 4«i^fi»>iiiiiifi is $«met3iii»d aipfttn^it tli» |>l««dttr« iMt
l|r wu^vly^'HS f »«te <tef <»4»tl'iMi ^it»i ttmk %lam %^ tlM» it ys^tim^^ di^
HTer«4 lUU ftf said ]toidtl«aftft M«^ Cftat* ?@^ip«'^ fmt \km in Hw
d|:r«9to4 1ii|r HQtiA l»itia»ti«i iaaitMi|s«'ir» t^it iN&id ««fij. w«u» ttCHM^tod tor
fu^y iMi^ @f^ |M«f 0SHB4 «Ull of its etyv^atiifts(t« in ssald ^;u»its»&9t»
aae»tti««t4t y»% ^im d«if<;»adUm% ^wis^iM not 9«^ ^9t mrXnisi eoal so
dtatvoviNl to iStm i&mmg» 9f ^atmnS^mt^ «%«« ^m& In f^«hi»p <^ mdA
i^e€i<a oauntsi Hm j^ulutlff aIoo tnmrrwl i» jsiitia'toiiOQ iSiut Hm
d«f««d«ttt i«s«Bii;l^alJ^« iHid In iri^latJMw of 6«|idl «iQ94t%3^«lMff mi^ottd
to i»«7Mlt itii %it«Jjiooj» iwBftwjitF %» msim M» m^UtimiM tte&t 9X«iii*»
turf issao Mtlttloa to Iw piia f 4BP oftsrtf^iR <»<ifi3. a«}}.iim2w^2 i3atk% on
to»iiit« JlOy 3L» ^9c>3t o«4d ^wusinMm OBMincfty ^<^ i"(iB3a» n oet^Uf ieutt
Ouftt Plaintiff ]bad doUvoiMd to «ofoitiSi«ft <$«rttiia eor^ t»it tli^t
oais iMoAiiooo mm00»» »t a«af onSimt* » »(»<itte8tt» loti^o mi odtiitiQii
to iif4tl onrtif &«»to tli«it ooj^toiR «iB»»it9 fiOtm^l^ be ti^^ct^d f rott
%» 9Pi«« «r ooiA ootiX* vMoii 0^4 ^i^^tioim imhpo lovviViap «I|A
-4-
not Ittwftilly Gbargealilft a^aliujt pl&iatlff » ete«
Xn one of defendant's »:9ecl.a3. ploaa of »et off it it
alleged in su^stenee t^^t plaintiff was, ^ofore and at the timi
of the camaenoewent of the suit, and still is, indelited to tho
defend«nt in the sua of $ll9459»8r> for 'the dif ierenoe in priee
of coal iRircli&sed from local dealers in Distriets zmiribmrdd 3
and 4» under the teznaoiy provisions and oorenaats of certain
contracta^ * « aore specifically set forth in plaintiff *s deelaratiOB
and additional ccnints, * * said difference in priee of said coal
being the price paid for the saae quality* efficiency^ grade asA
character of coal to be furnished unuer * f said contracts *' * to
local daalera in coal in the roapeuti're localities ne^axeat the
Bcdiool buildinga ncedim^ aaid coaj jl* 3Les» the contract prices set
forth in aaid coutraota * * for the respective gradea, ^ality*
(^araoier and efficiency of coal so to be delivered and furnished
by the said plaintiff to the dcfendantt * * isdiioh said sum of aoney,
so due froa plaintiff to defendant, exceeds the daao^s 0uotained
by the plaintiff By reaa<m of the non*perf erraioiee by the defendant
of the seTerol supposed proaiaeQ in the said declaration mentioned,
and out of li^iioh said sua of aoney the def&ndettt is ready and lidlling
and hereby offers to set off and allow the plaintiff the full amount
of said daxaosiges", etc. The other special plea of set fldtf , while
m»re in detail* is to the saae effect* In defendant* a notice of
set off there was incorporated & tabulated list purporting to n^ow
in detail the soTOral aaounts deducted froa plaintiff* s said contract
"for eoal purchased to Iceep up tho supply at the varieus schools.*
Xn this list appeared names of coal dealers, the various dates of
alleged purchases of coal, the various amounts paid, the contract
9rice of the coal, the deductions Biade, the total sua of all
doductions, ogsregatinF. $11« 459.86, and the nsnss of the sdiool
«Oia
liuildings to Tdiich coal was alleged to haTo l)oen doliverod*
Ob the trial it w«a agrood that the contracts st«t
up in plaintiff *o deelaration nmro the ccmtraotfl of the parties.
Plaintiff Galled as witnesses John Ouilf ord» business vmimfffir
of defendant during the jrears 190;;: and 1903; u« K. ^ranklsady
an eiapXojree of defendant during said years; and Harry H« Braolesttt
mtditor of defendant since Se]»teaiber> 1914. And plaintiff intro-
(^ced Tarlous exhilsits taken from the records of defendasts*
Plaintiff's evidence shoiied that during the aonthe of January,
February* April and July, 1903, plaintiff had delivered certain
coal to defendant and had rendered bills therefor to defendant;
thai the coal had been reccired and used li^r defendant but had not
been fully paid f or*; and that thee amount unpaid for the coal
sKgrosated the sua of $11,41@.73« Plaintiff's exhibit 9, supplemented
1;^ the tostisiony of the nitnossos Braoioett and Guilford, showed that
plaintiff had rendered defendant a bill for #15, 062 •76 for coal de-
livered during the xoontha of Jamiary and Peboruary, 1902; and that a
isenoranduB had be«n vxritten at the foot of the bill, making a
deduction of |9,731.59 for "differenoe in price of coal pirchaeed
to Iceep u^ supply", and leaving a balance adstittedly due plaintiff
of $5331.21. Plaintiff* s ei^Oiibit 9-A, supplestented by the testlawny
of said witnesses, showed that a varrsaat for $9331.21, dated April 15,
1903, and drawn by defendant on the Treasurer of the City of Ghicago,
was paid on Beoeaiber 4, 1905 to plaintiff; that said v^rraat iMre
on its faoe, the words and figures, "Less difference in price of
coal purchased to loeep up mipply, $9,731.55"; end that attached
to said warrant was the following stateaentit
"Board of Education of the City of Chiofago claia»
tlM right to credit itself with t>ie difference in price
of coal purclmsed to keep up supply, as above. United
Btates Coal Co. disputes the said credit of |9,731«55.
fhe balance of f'&,331.21 is this day paid by the Board
of ^::ducation of the *^ity of C'ticaco to the United states
Ceal Co., and received by the United States Coal Co.
:ia9t fldv" -^
i i
-6-
without prejudice to ttxe rights or claims of either
the Board of Sducatioo of the ^ity of C}iio;:iCG or the
United 3tat«ft Coal Co.**
Plaintiff* o o^diibits 10 and lO-A* supplesicnted by th«
testimony of seid witne8sea« disclosed that plaintiff hud rendered
defendant a bill for $5393.92, for ooal dcllTsred during the awnth
of April, 1903; that a deduction of sia490,52 for tht eauiB alleged
re aeon had "been made; that on K&y 37, 1903, defendant had drawn a
warrant for $3,903.40, iriiloh wa@ paid plaintiff on Deoealrar 4, 1903;
the flaid warrant bore en ita fae© the cndoraeraent , "Reduction a/e
fuel purohaeed froas local dealers, ^1490.52**; and that attached to
the warrant waa a eioilar etateaient as above aet fort^» iQ.aintiff*s
exhibits 12 and 12«A, suppleniented aa aforesaid, disclosed that
plaintiff h&A rendered defendant a bill for $S38«21 foroooal delivered
during the month of JUly, 1903; that a deduction of $194.66 for the
sane alleged reason had ^^een laade; that on 3ept«^niber 16, 1903,
defendant had dram a warrant for #343*5$, vhiidii was paid pl&intiff
on Bec«ifl»er 4, 1903; and that attached to tibie w^^rrant was a similar
statenent as tra» attached to i^i^chibit 9-A. The aggregate sum of said
three deductions is |11,416«73*
The defend;mt en the trial relied upon its eXaim Af mt
off to defeat plaintiff's olaira. It called as witnessos Cl«^ton
Kark, president of the Board of i<)ducc:.tion in 190:^, and U* H« Franlc-
land, previously osdled as a vritness by plaintiff* Mr* Hark
testified to Glaring various conversations and telephone talks ia
1905 with Mr, O^Gscra and Mr* Lawler, representatives of plaintiff,
regarding deliveries of coal, and to having various eonvex'srtions
with Ut, Guder or ttie court
construing that decree as heretofore recited, the etipulntioo,
BO>called, of Tolsaan that the debt waa p«ld, to which utipulation
neitiier he nor the oonplaiaaat have ever consented; that con-
teaiporaneously with the negotiation ef Aoeuat S1^, 1991, he, with
Kobs-rta, jf^rnberg and iitodder, deposited with Tolnsan aa eollateml
thereto a large muaber of notes. siortgAi?es and other property of
.0-
11
great TAlue; that olmna theroAfivr rejroaented Ui«% Aome of
Ui«»e projerti«» w«re endjarigfared by unaerlyiag liens; that
Telauuft pret«nd«d the »«oarit,y w«» induff ioicmt, utu th^t fcr th»
puT^oe« cf proteotiOf: vh« ai&^d* h«« iaoker* from X-imo tc tla«
dellT<sr«d or deeded ftnd ecnv^ed to ?«>la&a udditional larg*
M&ount of oollKteral; thAt turth&r large iMieunt» w«r« deposited
with ?clBifi«} by himamltt 'rob^rto* Jerr)l»erg and iltodder; that th»
•«ja« U«t not been returned or aeecunted for or tiitt prcae<»da
thereof; tiist the right » of K^lxfrte and J'^rnVerg hsd been »•-
• isni»d tn orofte»co%plain«jat; that Cook never (iepoeited any
oollttteral; that tltodder hnt At, intf^r^et ^daicti aan be detf^rmtned
only on nn aocountlng* en;i that cojeplain^znt and tri«ee are the
only p«raone who new h«ive any rights, title to or int)!>ro8t in
any of eaid ocllHteral or projpcrty Mihiet^ was de^orlb^d in exhil>it
A« attaoh&d to the bill; that by deoree of the i>. a. court,
Telsan hivd acquired a lien en all the aaeete cf the larK ^tienal
j'ankt * schedule of whioh is )»et forth; tiuit t IsMin fcr^lcaaA
the eaoie in Ux&i court, obtaining the decree freai which eroea*
eoBiplainant was kbout to app<^1, ^en on aepteetber &« Ibi^, in
ooneiiieration of the pending api oal and the deposit of further
eol lateral ttpon the puysimx of Uie indfibtednees, h«^, telman,
f remised hf? eoulil eur render »nl turn oyer to oross-qojuplainant
all property of every kind and deacriptii»©n depoelted by .^oker.
Poberte, Jernber* and ^tedder, ani that h9t Tolman, would a«-
ccunt for th^aamt wiUi all iner«»«»flt; tHat a deserHipticn of
this property ie solely within the knovyled^e of Tilman; that
TolGian agreed he would, throu^ sale, acquire all the titl^ to
the asset of the bank, and would pay th<* rrcoeede thereof te
oross-oottvlc'^inant: tAat Tols^^n has failed to keep eaid promise;
that Toloan wrongfully neglected to pay off underlying liens at
protclaed. and allowed the collateral pledged to be Misted; that
the orii^inal bill was filed r>eceaaier 4, I9cl» but the f^^ot of
az a :
IM
tUft wtfmw^ nr tarn «f iglnAai wm^ tmm min^ "kmm ttHniAiMm^ V t0ii
in mtmrni^am ^^% rusimm ham i^o«iif%s.'4500toQ@o«oo i» «js«»tt3 of ti»
%» viiiitti IM i<N>lE tit2# ft» ^bm«t««* Imt «lii4li IMMW \mmt m%A «ni
<iHtf<m>A «f %s ^i^ tUttt IMi 10 li«IA« i« «««««i^ thwptf QVi nn^ f#y
«t)^jm «lii<^ iM eiiiXl kuldUj la ti^at for erosd eam^ailJiMttt*
«rr«} l^u»t Sit iM«<Nmt »n|r 1M» ttgOnm* mA if ttm tafSm'h^&^mHm hm !)•««
§nifl!m& ant i9««lttl> SMMann^r Mritine ix9» ^^ etli^ y««iSQiii»« tiv^t
tlw £ill^pk%l«n» «f Use CK'IM^ %tU nvjrn ldaodiw}iy$%«nt i»il^ Hm MttMcr
«r the #rl«l»itl un «»«Bdttto& ^ mm f m txot* amt iiiiii«f^ imni«
a««%Kr» ;ii««iiKi« tn&t ^am &mm MU 4Ad ii»t m% u> «r cOJUm*
Mttteam gi»MnS]» %« tiMi orl^<ijial bU.1 cf ^M) ««2i«f iNi>iit^f uii«Ji<Mr Hw
%• tiil« biU tma •i»i%nfta*d* KIM msm%s» Vmmti^m rvpmftmAt find*
Ink mifi^ «
ftf yj
m
HidmAem CSksuriiMi ^# t««lBiar« m ntcnil vie* ft»«iiMd to
oiiiifi«3r «*]p%aiiii prsmat^ (^erv^wa ts tMit UilipftiUiil
ii««M» ttf m^m^ issm^im^ mmim^ mmm$mdi m& 4»tiimmti
«f «4^iiti|0ip«l vprni w«M X^^m tit^t it i« ^itjii^m lam «»»t
l«i»|fMw»«« ans «# ^ii» i>^aul iNiiaaM in a «<iftiUtt »»«• if
|i^tis«39 1mA ^•m 99M9 am *i^t fUm mmU$mm% wm
mMi^d u htm t^ mnwA 9i»«^ tf mp^ptrty Inirtil^
liftsralit, <3i8ififea >j»(i Aia%X^m$. %• IMW al «!«»# « « « Hm*
%mlm9 ^^^ ^«»* ^ %^ ^'"^s^ aifctnOi INI «InkIihI It ^ii»
«dUU»4 to * Um «pin ft$iM fr^^rtf. lioii«v«P* «r am mm
— -^ - - - - ^nhmmm d«u«Mi,
«r9»4ito€ idLtli i»l»«vMitt iK «ldte mm f»«i «lw 4lii Asgr «f
^^«flMillfl»tir« X900, ::..t t^}i«IRK|it «r a^ POP laiinMi 44MR to IM0
Mftt Mid ahduXd to fam^itMl «3«» wliai «U .j^ApMit «r
tc-^'^.c jMd apiol«& «»to8«n«i4w itoAtt 1»y -'^iM -^Ine^ t^---^-'^ ^^^^
«ilih l»toiNi«% «t III far«i tlMi 4«toi» «r tai9 r«i^0t4to
9««Mnto« d«Mti to to4« <i«kto| Vamt to* 6a$4 <l«^«xk«<ttii»
fimiAUkesi «o * AiMii npiin muim propf riu
«r ^m.3?*3L0« a«to to* twto ar Mm.'N
toMr»«rto¥ tdld to f «teMi lir ^li^«S««
tow (iSi9iaA to ex'«dito^ to flu eto^lad
a»$4£
•!««
pNpnr^ tTtmi mi% «^%k« t4tli |yii««>in»ii«« &% 0*
%im i&miMm* tim msmKm% tm tins iiati^on in m^%imm is i3s»% Hit
mdLj ti^^ ef ffi iNsrtar t* m^Am ^ssemm mnem lit 4#tf]^p%4 fmw
dsf fttid^m^ la «3Pvia^ ittigf ^»£il^ iKr«»Ni ^ririawy nasi ^»
eo^xri @h»3^ 4i8^ai« of th^i mam m in rfiVtmT eumm of
It i» iix&m^ Vm.% ^ <*i!^^laf * i» mm^ aim pna/inf
NM i& tills mmm 4tma »vi inm «« 9a«l»i>| thai iV&MVtf am
ipNiiSWKt lift «i« hasm wm laiax««t 111 sti«t4i|»l»g t3w de«f9«» «atl
«.&»►
«ni£ |&i!i4» tShln amjiet Im^ %mv^fmtm., i^i^m.% J«ri»^«tti» t« «iflMiirt@4»
«kfiia^;i»ti^!i!»a« 'Sh^l i% «&3Ul 1» mmfomo^ w a^t^xwtoe l^n^ f»ot» tNifivt
whicli
m tkilak i& <it&» «f4Ni Uatt tl0«s«« ^ijuril^4a^«is lli» Mil**
taeiVit m^ oa^^i^iy rirnn and ^lM«iH&ii»ft ^Sm ^mtmlUm p^inelj^* V
latm m^tmUMl vi^im 0t t2» woaetimt si^ pit in immm »r« 4«^«>»
is ai.s«6t«a to IM talmi* «y« mmm^ insMmML U tte «;i0$o»UMi
•r it.
■'^
,-i»
.#
•1,6»
-litlisslt MUr 1lt«;^ i^kt tl)i«» «»& i^ & fiitei3L 4s«»ftfi ii» mii^li&liHitf Hir
'4iilL<s tiMiiNi war %» liiwaM w tf i In mmm mamn iwnninlim t»
m^ mmm» «iialJ|$r 4|»ti»,^.^iaii tlMW. ri?^a t3lil» «UMf»» a«iA '«• IflMWt*
fiv« hi&d ilidU tttturt hm ^iB^&(Ujsitiim %» ifmfkmr m* 4«»«iii«*
it i« mwNl IQT iitl>»13Mit tihat tins de«r«^ l» ^mfmmmm In
•» fur ^ &t aiJN»«t»d ttott d«)ir«ttiiiii<3ait tolstsda t$ <3««d »«4d int ImiS.'«»
In 1idA<M tiM»» la H;^ »$a^ waft 3Mi%) %«» «aS »x«nip»» lisi bl^ok fl£r««»
tills 3P(»UUf K^iM gttwn <HI tlMt tl^»Q«3r tlM^i tii@ M31 wm mt» tm
fmoOiOitiait wiU imt IN aSJLtiNNi t<o 9%&U liJU^ <s»^ ffini wiar i» tbt
iftttMAi4 «n tiifti iprowiA* -^ «3eHMta^tlaA «f tl» l»iX3.« ^-t think*
«t
«ii 'I
-IV*
ti i» ffr nfti t pt «ju»» teiki» utat ^j«i» HU «<wia 29E9t
^^«i( It «Sb&ir^S «n illf9«S3^tii«| @9Bl4 toSlij$f l» h«9)» iMMUl p«dUU
is%eM& la %lm MUl ^1^ tat^iui*
4» tli»i> «it t^ ir^s^ %$m ^Mm ««2lttt«t3m& f €tjc t^i<ii &- '•
iMteii »i44 111 £t^« m yUw «r iiMill t*l»dlai.; --U^^Jt^
«it& VttfMMfMW to ii* «iit -»» iii^ not ^sfftiaftd !<» 4«i@r lliu>l. T$,sSim
til* <)a*» »%a«o4 fok nm i^Ai mi m^^ ir ^^ p^&Aikmm» ti^ ""^^
Hit fuHftMRp ««ii%a«tti«ft «r «9i9«iiaiit Wm% mmS>fiimm% ^miSA mt
ia«<i8tr« viM 4«i9M^l4i4 tiM <Ma,i«.t«ir6au (aife^wie^ mAm^iA«3iir$
% 6is«««rl »t»tK«wRit or tfe» lUHtl tnm^ hmm fm tim 3mfmm ^bit
in m tuat an :i»t toitltv la ia*«ilt t«i lit mmf^rmA^ It «i9*«s*» ^v^i
-^idi»
tlte^t «isi«li 9f iSb»m mm »t»U»u %& %im x^cei^* and Hm 4»^««Ain|«
(other than Tolman)
immLXM.Ms^mi§. ^^^ ^^* ^^^^*
«a3L3ii mat ».%%milimtk t9 t^ ^(ii>itpalNt«ift imlt Hiti^i In UKr^eif tt» i«lMi
iSam l4>3MiAal ^Klfwil flit«d «i mA tm ^sm %^m puj^fMiiMi 9^ p»y»
thinic« ]wii» »» «iis^^&a.ii«M t« 11i» f «J9t« of tMa «riu»« «» f eftmd
IS4 im» «dc^} ttttti iitei# ^"^^^ ^fe«** '■■'»f y* -"^^^■> 3i^ ^^* ^«
i^pp«i:UEtt next aypM&i ^bm% tiM 9l*tt a f »if tM>|nAi«ilft iMt
««e«]r^9 thi^it hid a«M «%»» l» f &«i« l»8dld. tBjft«r tlw fHJtag tf
«»&.tiN»
^hm4$sm taiM mffA.0 ^^ »&mKe m4 IoImmi Iwvi «•<» .'
m 9«6rtiiiit« i3U«tt InUt ^asIbsx* Urn Imhoi iittl]»i1^|t;»1^l ti^ d^tmt rwr {
tlmmtiiaw «at«mMI| VKm% Urn 4»mm $m ^^% iNtJsvmst mm ftiutl
i
ft ef^wi %4I1 ^ «ii%SUii iiim tm m 4^9sm |» IkU» f opohp f «p «»jr i
,^.^ — >.^„,^-— . i
<««i ^#>w ^smte -^> ^^ MsMmM 4^ 3CU. .^, 30?j
ant ^ f ^Uf m msx^Am^ 'p^im^ m%t tm rimii In imlq ]
I909« «(&«» ittt«i3ra»(%»t«ifar« it «fta «i9«^i|r witlklji «Im» ptmof ^ Hit
tm4 tAiXi^ tlMKnt torn «iart@tl» «i3eo>^!|^U«iJi» f«i«lbt m pweimmia^
^nit liiliik: mm ^tfH %« f «3U8d in tiiifi <i^t« ^iHsxivt ^^^.t iia« hm
Mtm «Kis9ndQd« 8« t^ t« lii«iiiiiS«» m ^mm tmAf&s&vt^ f «r« »»tt>«ini
^s#« i^i . iwi .jaJiiiliiiiiiiiinilii «^ ^^* ^ Mihi ti mmait
Itat ^dlnle llw #0Mi3rt 4l>d net «tfr In <ssxi«^lll^;^ a^^.^' -^^'^
Itt m tarn ma 1i» «iia««e.%l«l» «f «l» ttii^gliua). ^iU
md %» sMtti vs'c^Yljr i« «l*«(^ la«aa0iiiiMiEl lAHi Hb oU^g^Uim
•f nw «f»Bii ^iu» i«ia^ iHit« t)# m^i tvwwi <Hii<»lwfaii«ti I* tte
Or «te ittwtr iMMdt ia im» far cx^ tbti ^ll.ii^tt>r^;4
desoKKlbta la liii0» iar«Mi UU lo wm% mf^ ^m» im tos&t a«s®p|U»4
V ito 07«»» «MiMt«lB M 1^ taw «inislaii3l tiiU» It moM mem
Mr,.***- $t*4 '
>m-'
>^^%t»'
wmmttt/^ U m% ft««iKilft U lam m%^$ma hUl* m rim mmam
«lkl» «i^#«i U ^^iif i& sa;!««« Bifrili #s»^ Mtii$ l»« 4&tt»2?«diift4
im mm t^ WS19 m U 4» s»^%km to a43l -m^; p^rtift$s« %Q .« c« X»
•r Hit ^?»ift« mKi0^imm%M ^-^iM wm
4A&, fiiodi in mml&mim ^Bm mm tt mm V» m^w ^ tlwt i»mt%
90 XU« 4;|»^* 4^1 p^irtMi it> i^ifiMi# *. 3>S .OX* M*
•iNi^tofa bin mm fi3sA -mmisibm 4i t^^*
ir«vilfi«<i tor tiw <»nMi« iHmpi-.4m«»t« "^r
mftl&Unt t« $ut >4h «& iH»Uf)«» flOA «#%«3r Ito iws Urns sut i»
a j^^.i^tll« aitituile temanlit mOtmilm* "^inimm^ 'h^ t-^AU€ U
9»mT% his sU»^^ TW^»n ^i^ »^mm &U%»^ m «^ bUI tm
t&ls tol^ in Uii^t Im Ud m% mm u»iU it mm
*^*t'»
. -av.
•m»
sm49 4«ttliH3L tl9i97«r«f . w»ii tSumitfmm mtU^m %& uim ttuit if he ifiMmA
t» tiKtii^iUiifti attitfi f s«t ( 3114 it mA%% hm^ ^mm flfpaanmt ^ h4»
it iKks «te» tmf hM t« 9^e09iit Me mm «» a pMi9»r ^i^intca* t%
rsvi^w of tidtt r9«i9nl« tli^t i% wtsiOd i:)« f ««lv m $%mt im taU.»v Hit
'-%« tb&T&fmmt «aftii»^ U»» @0iii?t did a^t €>3^ in mi**
t«4»iiig tl^ d<>Qttarr@ir t« tsti«$ oviaM i>i3tl« suii^ i3i 4«iariii^ tJiti iiMtlL<M
if tim «*mm flmnKftiiiilniHin. fwt i»&m t« ?«3jri;i<» it« -m fin^ «k>
f
162 . 26058
IDA Ji. MACK BAlEBBfi*
Appcll ee,
▼ 8.
aAliUm A. TOLl^AR hi. •! .
On A|»pe«l of JJAi^UK^t A, TOLi'
A^pell
Air-RAJ, raoit GIwOVilT COURT
01? eooK cotmTY.
219 i.A. 652
TIT ION WQh A KJKMEAHINC,
KR, JUaTICK HATCKRCT D^a^IVKflED XHl WIHIOK 01? THS CCUKT.
i>«tltions;for rehearing have b««n filed in this east
by the adrainiatrators of the rt^speetive estates of iiaioiuel A.
Telman and Charlea ;. lacker.
It is contended by appellant that the decision of
the court is based upon "an erroneous aseumption of fact,**
sod it is anid that the court apparently aaoumes that the eom-
plainant, Ida K, h&ek Barber, conY*?y©d to Tolman an interest
in the real estate which the decree directs shall be conveyed
to her,
Va did not so assume, but on the contrary follewad
the findings of fact as stated in the deoree of 7iiOT«iber 3, 1909,
and October I, 1916, Tiieae finaings are tc the effect that iAi«a
I'aclcer conveyed the property to defendant 'colman the entire in*
debtedness due to Tolaan on the original note had been paid; that
the defendant had agreed with tue complainant that wheneTsr he
was reimbursed for the money adTonceci he would return to com-
plainant the securities held by him, i acker, the only party who
would have any standing to question complainant's right in this
reepeot, answers the bill, admitting its allegntiona both for
himself and as agent of the shareholders of the lark Rational
Bank. That answer and admission not only binds packer indiridually
asosS'
isaojt^rxj©-*
m^ntbaii eaii
and aa ag«nt, but protvott 7olauua« »o Uiat he has no atanding to
oomplain.
The findings of fnct hnva not xatherto boon contested
by appellant; indeed*, as pointed out in the opinion, he did not
eren abstract the «x«eptiens to the master *s report.
It is also urged by appellant that lots 10 and 11 in
Block 1 in J^dward & Dana's Addition to Irving lark vera part of
the property which was sold to l/r. Tolmaxt at public sale in 1896
under the order of the United states District Court, ?md that for
the purchase price of this property rolman yias accounted in ths
aeoount filed by hiai before the raaster, and that the sum «as ap-
plied by Tolman on the indebtedness due from Slacker, Jernberg
and others to hi(n.
Appellant says: "in other words Tolisan purehassd
this property and paid for the aai»e, and applied the purchase
money on the indebtedness due hioi ««■«#,• A decree, therefore,
that Tolman be now ooapelled to transfer the lots in question to
lirs. Barber would result in this anosialeus position, viz •> that
the indebtedness from lacker to Telsian ms paid in part by a sale
of the lots in question by the federal District Court to loli&an,
and having been thus paid, the property so sold to Tclffian and for
the purchase of which he has accounted will be taken frosi hisi and
retransf erred to a person who never had or claimed any interest
therein, except under an alleged eontrsct in 1696, which was not
proven,"
The record as we understand it does net sustain this
statement, but on the contrary the decree finds as a fact that
the whole indebtedness to Tolman had been paid prior to ths con-
firv>ation of the sale of assets of the >«rk Rational Bank to
iL<i*fi »fUi
Tolman under th« deor«« of the U. 3. District Court,
Tlio potitionsfor rohoaring will be denied,
Barnes, P. J,^ and Gridley, J,, concuro
p'Xi/i>i3[00 t. ? , «• . i'^SiVi&Si
150 - ii54G4
A33CCIATKB yrUiI'\COti'ARY, / )
» oortoration» \ / ]
\Appellanti
T.
JO!" P, 0»BHIKN,
M^TM. moU MUmcII AL CCUBT
Of CHXCAOC.
219 I.A. 653
UK. JliUTICK TATCKCTT WTlVT^BS flUB OI'IHIOK 0? THE COURT.
Tb« ttppellnnt* ««ioa«ii0 plaintiff in th« trial court,
sued, alleging tbiat on HOTeir.bvr 6, 191b, he sold the defendant
39,000 pounds of potatoes at $1,96 per hundred, leas frei<ght of
^fZ,Z7; that the potatoes were to be delivert^d in a oar at Au-
rora, Illinois; Uiftt these potatoes were delivered there about
NOTOBiber 2o, 191h, sAd were inspected by the u. i». Departsiient of
Agriculture, but that defendant refused to aeeept and pay for
the same; that the oar of potatoes was then c#nsigned to tJtie
nearest market for jaerehandise of that kind, and sold at a loss
to plaintiff of #307,00,
I'laintlff also set up in his statement of claia a
written finding by the li, 3. Bureau of varkett that the potatoea
would gr»de •U, rj, Ko, l;» and a letter frtaa the Bnforoe»ient
Division of the U. f;. Pood Ada in i at ra tor, dated January 2f , 1919,
notifying the defendant that the potatoes were *u, 3. orade »o,
1," ae per agreement, and that defendant should be held responsi-
ble for the loss.
the affidavit of merits denied the defendant owedi
any sun whatever, aoved to strike the exhibits set up in the
statement of olaisi purportini$ to shew the aots and doings of the
7oed Administration, denied the aaking of the contraot or the
purchase of the potatoes as alli^ed, but set u;. tlwt he, the de«
ftntiant, bought a oar of »yan«y King potatoes," eiiich were to
^-* %j^ %.:
1>e d«llTer«d «t Aurcr»; thitt th« plAlntiff t«n<l<?r«d a o»r of
petAtoo* «t Auroral* whieh we>r« not •Fanoy King potatoes," but
en the contrary ahewad blight fknd rot and oth«r defecta; that
he, dafandant, aaa at all titB«a raady and williOK to taka
"Fancy King ^etatoaa" aa a^aad, but plaintiff failed and ra-
fuaad to dallvar auoh potatoes*
The eaaa «»» tried by the court is^ituout a jury,
and evidenoa aubxitted in beimlf of the reapeotiva partiaa.
The finding was for the defendant and Jud«;nent <^s entered
thr^reon.
It aaiKns to be the oonfeentien of appellant tliat
because the u. 3, Food Administration, thrco^i its DiTiaion of
Eitforoemant, rendered a decision on January Z7 , 1919, holding
that the oar of potatoes was of a certain grade Ko. 1; that
defendant ahould have hean held to its original eontraet; that
this amounts to **an award* as binding on the parties as a -nrittao
contract, in this oonneetion we are eited to the u, '4 , v. The
te nneylYania Goaf cc, , 266 Fad, 7o6, where the Talidity of the
a, li. Food Administration Act waa upheld in a oaae brought there-
under for profiteering. That oase tk»,B no application to the
facts fiiioa sppear hers. Indeed the decision of the Food Ad-
ministrator, which is in evidence, »t.atas, "wa interTwae ta
prevent food fro«> spelling, incidentally wa try to preT«»nt ob-
struction of transportation. Where the goods have actually
been handled or have not been shipped, the foregoing reasons
for our intervention do not exist, ^e are not a oollectiaB
agency; the courts are the proper tribunals to settle disputes, **•
The Rules of the Food Administraticn, dated Juno
10, 1918, are In evideneo, but we find nothing in thorn or in tho
Aet creating it which would indicate t^iat the Food Administration
liAd »ny p*v«r to p»»« ©n or deteraine the right* of th« parti «■
to this 9uit. alnott it is eonoffded thnt both th« parties ar«
and v«re reeidftnti of ilTlnola, th« imifcra a»l«ft Act, imrd't
R«vi»«d yt«tut««» 1917, ohftpter 12r, 'irould be applicable, and
acotion 4 of thut AOt would prertnt a recovery by plaintiff toe-
causa the contract aued ea invclvad th« sale of merohandiaa of
^6(0. 00 or upward*, and there waa no JB«BOrandu% of the transac-
tion as required by that section. This defense Is argued but
was not set up In the affidavit of merits.
However, the finding of tiiie trial court, «$:iioh
saw the witneases and heard their testir^ony both as to the
terae of the contract and the quality of the potntoee tendered,
was In flavor of the defendant, '-^m have e:x»uBined the evidence
and we think it 8us1.Ains the finding of the ccurt. The Jud^ent
will therefore be affirmed.
Barnes, J, J», and cridlev, j,, concur.
31
%66 • ^9430
mnY K. c^^^BUJt* tor har mx%
▼».
mmjo, mm
coojs: Qwmt.
I.A. 653
m. jTssixr^ KAXcsieYf lioureMKB tim mtmm m wi omsm*
«n t3w 9tl& dajT 0^ i<^yt|92sty X9X7« the d«^eiid«mt nas «iipi@ed la tfcw
i9e ereoM liU3iiMfi«» mA «»»• at thut tl»e, driving e«rtAi]i iMcrwis
«id » WMigQii ia ft sm^therlj ctir«etlon» lia tJier alley 1»«tifMMii llRKlirwi*
xmwK» and au^fto »ir«iaae» in ttad City kkT c>a«^; tlui^t plaintiff
WGta dtandiag ]i»«ar & uste «d4 absent to th» a3LX«y« iit Urn w^eap of tb«
panmiim» Immmi ua 453fl Hdmisjra mvam^ t^t a osrt&in other hmeu»
•nd «»smt« tt^d in the &&X%'rmrt ^ f ^tiitt w«m» ataiKliag nAiir te tiMi
iikto; tli^t d4if «{tdast f siiXod to ped'igfftt its ^ty to driira tlirougb
•aid (iXley witli duo eare^ lut eareltta^sly said »(i^i|p»ntiy «aa»fitd»
oi^erated »nd oontrQllod eMaid h«rii#« and va^gm^ &9 tli»t said wiami
eo^idQd with 0aid otimty mtiptn* and tli« hmtm t%tta<dl3«d te t2M
fwtit «»0Mi was tJiroHKi ««{ftla0t the «»t«, #ii«ai eeni^t th« imnd if
yiaintiff « in^urinij hor*
%lw ditf«ad«ttt filod tite pX«a ef thu gonerjai iswt* end
•P««ia3l pi««s« «lii«h •9«oial pX^um vrnx*, li»weY«r» ntftervtord wiili^
drswa, tht «flM« lias tried 1»y a 3u3*y« which f ottitd for plAintifiT
ia tte Stat of fSSOO, XIk» court required a roalttltur of $1500,
mSm
W6M mo Httgli^iwm aamm «» tin: i>«!irt «cr ^mgm&mitt «^ b» tviiiutMW
i« <pe«W««siv«» ?&«sJj|tlff @i tllii» %i»i df tuts »ec4d«^iit -«ms » t^iiM
dOfKurritdy rem i^rlh and »<»at£i.» mA warn e^mt% ei2tt««m f«#t w44fti
r?aii «8ts4ii i»t09d a iitti« l««s ^isi» t^ fttitt fr^a ^t»@ ir««ar fnam
9t plain tiff* a h«BWt #ii<^ ml$&iiam^ t^ nX'h»'sr* '^t3m imtm toA
fimXt ura^fm w»re imgn^aA smtli* sand wt.ir« a^smli^ p«irrell«3, %o t&»
doer «f $; ftmt <H» i%9ift40O yuad*
f )£» di?it«3r «f tli@ f suit im«^ t«8t|jried «3«tit lift hmahk
ftOd £t«^9«4 t9 «mt«lli it* 1»mt {>^ It rtttec;^ lh« fimit ivstgon* tJie
fmit i^'3g;«:e«i riid h«r9« %tt<&<iito4 to it weie^ «ri«aeidiag; etiXl'S tiAs^t
tiie hind «dM!«l of tbt t«« em&m «m{E<m »t3»t«lc th« fyoiit «iiiM»3. idt
tli@ fmit ia«e«ii« mid tlunm tlM» Iiftr9« i^ «gitlauit tins i^t«; tii^t
tlw x«n shaft of !iis «R«on wm ^m^nm^ tmA tte Ittl^ af tlie a«f t
fr«i2t «lifiQl 4e«it«d*
fhi» tttistlMSiiy' ie «<Hnp«lMr«3^to4 ^ mat «f «mi BtOdwiap
a i«2iii^«iiA» t-ttsti.fiM th»t Ha me ^iag ws^rtai in tbo aii«ar»
Stt^iiBB «^ J^aMaHMehMur; ts&sii tJso fruit vsnicm w» etsiiKliii^ s^tillt
fAwi a«f«)iHt«ttt*B ufanim r«ix l»t» it» tlsirci'tfins; tint Imara* «#ftt»«t
iilr:
mim
Ite &Mlt« tlB^ iiiirm^mti:*»v ^ pl^l^tiff testified ttte-it at t^
ilw «f ta»- o.««?44«»t «feft w.e sit«i«liixtj rl^t »«?«Lr Him kftt«bea
tM» rA#L^ g^i» vf«F, tii«ii'-5aUr.j| ai»?,t r^s^tam the wlt«»«» g*t jJjRtsR
tlw stc^e-, pliidBtUT hitd 3»rJa?4 Her nif«M m%i tjEsja-t tlw piitiRtirf
art«3f He i^t }^sim* Sbu tjw lastj €?f ta^s? .frtctt m,f!?3R lilt tlw» hMM
yiis;^' ia<4 am, «w«£v iridic ^t-^f. him &t l;h«s t«»»» %s^t 1^ »«» im« s»t
tt»<UUi4 £« A witqHisa* flftsf «»» his sAam/km a«i6maittt4 f«3r«
»tt«a<ubis si«yfti«isii t^eurin^ tJ^t i^ liM m im^ Xt^m9n,im* tl^t
Ibmd; %\ni.% tK if«««<i lit ^ «• Mft«li «« P«#«il9tl«» »nej. i^piiiii^ tt
«iiti3f« ptiXu Sim. ltt^?»tsit «^ «3^« ^^ %^v <^ 1^ «QU^« mmiI
?i«fl flSflVirai that plflkisilff «%» Wideir '<»i» o^^^r^ ?rm -"^rnxnt MXkUl
U»mm tpMtm^ a.% Its Immi ttet^t tlaiy« wat* a ^Uisr tw» toHl a ludf
in^ ••Mr nuiaiiig smhtmhi ISm fv^mt «f tlit yi#it ii)d«x f inasr dMi
to tht i^tOM «f tlMi hamdt ^h/it if mm tri«S to straMiteii tlM
M mm. ^m^pn. ^nas j^»l«l i^ m». htm vm^of^ ^^^ liMi «iniaQiti«i
m niirar «r *^k« r^9i i^% mmm it »» ««i«a«tiiteii «r
i/mmm^ «ai^tetf| t^adlnfii t» |»rix»miii Vm prnj^ m Klilitit lilHt
St.
fa m* m^* u$$ li^jmMA-
■Vij*
>, j?* ,?♦, {SiKfet iif^^i^iP,, $mp ^mufit^^
18? • m442
2l9l.i^' 653
Mm mmitm m^msn msa:mms> wm GBmtm m rm eoBRt •
litiiriilar d«er«»cl«at «»QAagfii^ ^m pX&iMtitt for on* ymat »a mmM$»v
prior t» the t«nitijia%iM «f tli» o&j^trit«t«
«Mc<>imt Af iri&iea^ it la qIaIihNI Mh dtMOiisurigA wmb not «r«Bgl^«
tl» «&•« was tried liy ^ Jury* #ii«h l3?r«4#it in a Twrditft far
jpXftiaiif f in tl3« mm of 99^*$$^ ^ 'wiui^ tlw ««nsrt e»tQir«4
IttAgiKiit* a&il«i»i for « »tw tarial and in nrroof of 4uS«»i«S
IsuiTltig ^§0n tinrdryttlods
it io «ani«»tly oaniimdUid ^sat tbtvt wmi ori'Or i» tbo
inotvuoafinM isl-vfta ^ thai «mrt in vriiiagf ^t am ISm nlMitahurt
«f ^M roewNl f S.118 W td«m at ^ham r«<i«est «uiy «n« of tte
iaatructioiit mup ^vini««« ^j^* yaal^io to giYo thio point ooe^
o&€eri&iioEi«
ICloi o«ntriu3i wsus oxoottlad SbutA i* X91t* i^ its toxow
Wm pl«liitiff a^poll««} ono OHVftO!y«d lor «sppoIXaBt for mm yoor
r o
Ml ft mma^v of itn tmmim d«f«urtei»t at tlit mm or ^0 pey
ntmth for Marofa« April tfad Ifaar* 3.017 ^ smd $IW f«v MMHth tlMf«»
af t«r» l»iiiafiRliXa on tlmr 1.5t2i md Xm% d(t^ of •oboh n^th* ctad in
addition* i>lai»tiff mis to re(^iv« s^ eonnioition of X%t of tbo
a®t profits x^aiiaod fron ^^ooloii imd ^olii^ tra&e. Haintiff
agroftd to doiroto him eatiro tiao and efforts to waeli de9ortiM»nt«
to
aCMl^uoo OTor;^ effort in tSw proat^tiim lutd oiioceaiiftt3l oonduot of
One 0^X219 • Ho WM dio^lMTsod oa 3vam 1$» i917* £*rior theiroto
m SvamB 12. Hi* ho Inroo^t «iit ois&iaot «|ipolXont for mam oloiaod
to bo mxe on aalary* «»d tbo mm oiaiawd ona thoroaftor paid*
Tbo protsidottt and oaohior of the Bank t«atifio4 th^it
they ro|»0£itod|,y took $«tmmx to taole for hio absence fron Xim
Bflsdc* ea^ wMX«$ ^eamor on relttttalt denied thio imo tnato» 3m did
not 4,ta^ iii» tostiaMQT of tho oaohior to tlio offeot tliat «lwn hOt
tho Cashier » toXd Ititt ltt$ would haw to ririeo out a report otating
tdutt peoplo h9 had »oon» iio roplied that im didnH Imto to do
that* that it iras »o% ctaJLlod for in tho omttraet*
Tb» proeidotttt oaahior and othor <»si^oyoo3 of tho Bank
goiro ovid@noo toadiag to t^lami that Jooaor a'teoontod hiaiaolf froa
his «erk» and nogloetod it to a great oxtont* Tho court, over
tin ohiootion of the d9fonA«»t» ad]»itt«d in ovidanoo th« filoo
In tho prior oiiiit hetwoon tho nmm pturtios, whitih ouit had hoen
•ottloa. th&m fiX&n included Urn Bt«^»iat of olaim* mxamoM
md rooortl shoott and tho otatenunt of elaiji vtem road in evidonot
to tho 4ury« and a Motion by d^jf a»d«int to strilegr out tho tumm^
oae donied 1^ the eourt* WO aro not aiao to understand mi alMt
thoory thio tJYldonoo wao adalttod or alXotiod to staad* XrvoipootiTO
of other ©rrora allogod* we thi^ik thri orror aaaignodt t*»t thO
•«urt ndiRittod inpro£>or oTidonco im hehalf ^ appolloa> nttot bo
•aatftined. The judAgwnt will ho roiwrood and tho ceuso roaauidod.
»nes,P,j,,and Gridley,j77concure WOSfSBJBBm AID BaOWBISO.
ic'i
*W»»
• 3S442
^m^mm ^^'^mm^f
f^
^pMli^i
ties mjm t^mmtm. Am
JSfmm mm
/
^ mieme^
/
/
Mm mmm msimtift^ ■mMimem wm mmwsg/m ma em»^
mm ««f«MiNi iMit t^ ji^ ija^ ^atumit m wm§.^ mm
Hm «a«« mte tr|*4 wi ^ts^t i«ii«Sit Urmi^^ ia » TWititt f cap
i»I«laUft In t»i« ^«r mm^m^ m ^«m,m tip ft«wrt mmm€
to"t3m«i^ito ali«« lor t}i» «a»rt'iii vritlnti, mtt oi «tii wimmma^
•f tti®/#tt««p«5 f mUU t<!^- «iitw «t tidMe v»<|yMl«t «l«r «•» ^ tlat
i(ttfft]r)^ti«a«
flw ««tttv«MBt uMa mmm^ii& s^idi ),» I9:it« % %%m %mmB
«3»
m ft Mnafftr ^f its twmim 4i«^«urisnia[it at «1mi mm «f ISO yvr
nwmifox »a3p«}i, A^rU and ISMy* 3.9179 ima |!|0I» ft^ m«th tlMiv*
drt«r» p«;sr^l«» 08 tli& 15th and ituit «lii|» oaf tfi&tik mm%h, mvi In
i«d t« 4<»v»t« lil» (ait&»« tint «j[id 9fftiae%n %« midb <iii9iur1an»itt
tim »iMt« fti 1KM dilialbftflBtMS on ^bm lOp 1917* Ft'ior tlMVttt*
«n y^w» 1X^9 he lircnii^ mii% ttaieJtimt vffpmXSM&t i^jt mm clalMNt
t» Iw d»« OR muXaaey^ maA %3m mm eXai/md was WmmtsSt&r p»%&*
Bcmk* tmA wb&l« ymm»r aa r«ilutt«3L« denied tiiia i«u» tsiMi* Iw did
not d«i^ t2M t««tiMHQr tf tHo d^uithi^jf ia th« eff«oi tj^t laiMn b9»
tlM» eajthisr^ told hia 3io would hasm t<» i^'fiMe^ mtt a ii*e|)«3rt •toting
4Mti 9««fl« IMI liad MMEDf li» v«pli&d that be didziH h«v« to do
tli&t« tltAt it ««M» ttol oftUod £'er In tj^ ^(Sttraet*
Wm 9roiii4«iit* oiaitliior und oiOMKr opwiiy^a of «Imi BmiAc
0Kf« «vid0no« teiiidiaa to Ohow titai Stmmv olNtontod iiiiwolf frOM
bis noork* ffi»d ao^eeted it to tt grsat osKtent. Vk0 ocxu't, ov«r
tii6 oTa^aotiMn of tbo d4i9f«ndant« a«NLit«d in ovidoaeo th«$ filoo
ia ih& prior 0ttit %o%«Hm tSio 9mm pixe^ma^ wMOh suit had ymnn
m%%l&(U tt»m ftXou ii»^^4adad tHo ot^iAoiMni of olala* okumnw
m& vmmmni abiiet* «iid tlM siatommt of olaJai m« voikd in ^ide»oo
to t>£@ Jvtjry, siM a notion Vjr dofdadant to otrite oat tha &i!J2a»»
WM doKiod 1^ tise ecurt* ^ «m aot aW&o to uadnrstaiid on Shot
tlMory thia airidonoo sa.9 jsitMlitod osr alloiiod to stsoiA* ZnooyootMni
Of other errors allsgodt .^ thirik tJiMt &msat luisignsdt that thi
eourt sdmittod Mmig^ntfrnv eridoneo >m '^hnlf of appoUos* m«t Iw
mstoiiwd* thm jui^pMsiit will 1»« vevsr^wd aiid tb» oottoo rowiuwts d,
Barnes, P.J. , and Gridley, J,, concur. IBffKlttBD ifll> IMMBliB*
0"
347 - assoi
II* Km OLD,
A|IP«XJ.4M} §
T8i
3. X. KAODUOI* tarakzig
Ayyaal from
Wmi«l9»l Court
219 I.A. 653
m* jnraTzc;^ XAf
.o^xvmK^ Tm mmxm m tm (mm*
wAmigmm «f «tee Fl«ijur city OmmmnUsl Zvon company in Hi is
and daliv«r«(i tqr tlui Xnm c««|i{adai3r at tl»i priee 9f ^JS30t on
^leh $500 had )MB«n paid, «ad a&kinii ju<lgia»iit for tbe 1teX«M««
i)«feiidaat f iiGd liis affidavit df nerits ia ohieai ho
alleged ]u» kad a good 4ef«na« to tlie t^iolJi of p3laintift*s i«MMl&t
Imt furthttrt tim% plaintiff cmtXd not ]Baiiiit«iB hits aotioii h^em^m
Um Flour c^ity Ornaiaeiit&l Iron Conpaa;/ mui »t ibe tint of the pur*
ported asQigjsnaiat of its i^aim to tlie plaintiff « a foMign eor*
por^xiion, doizig leusiitooft wltlsXn Xllinoi^t v^^ithmit tiisia^ lic&naod
so to do; that the eontr&ot Iwtween i3a/s oaid Xr<Hfi OoHpEUiar aflt
defoftdaat «a» TOid and ttiii«f<^«««ll&0«
Thi pl&intiff haTiag filed m addition^^ iltiiiWit
BOttittg up tliat h« aociuirea title to tiie aocmmt on jraaaaafy 18 »
1917, Isgr aasignia«?nt in writingt tlM» defondoat filed an anonded
affid».vit of awrits, in %f ic^, in addition to tlio facte alleged
in Xibs original aflidairit, TM fur^mr allege^
ofluit the transaction, ^ii(^ ie tSua l}aeie of this eaaeo
was not inter* state t^caeKtroe, 1m t was Insineoa transaoted
within the itate of Illinoia, and th.:it fron JUly ';3rd, 1014
to January 9th. 1015, the Flour 'Jity Omenental Iron
CiMipany «aa doing 'iAxaiaam trithin Illinoia, nhicdi
^sineae waa not inter-atate oonm&roe or econeroo lM9tvo«i
Btatoe of the Onited statoo.f
fiKi't*': '
rg
,i*'v
•2»
Vm mmm w&s triad l»y tim eoort vlt&«ut a ^ry. It
was sstipalated ti^t fXjainUff *s a93i«:n0r, ^ms* at tho tins tf thd
eetttracrt in qjtiestidi^ a eor^ratlon orgeialasGdc axistiac; stxnA doing
tnifiin :a» und^^r tlio Ism of UincM»»«t8.« and h ia aot filed Ito artleXoe
of ijaee^po3rati«Dt audi m)« B9t ileonawKl to do IwiBizieQs in XllinoiSt
}?Ad Va.u% gmy d«f«nt9« t^-it ^irculd }mye Imtm «irall«fcbX0 a^gM^nst tfaM
flour City Om^saental Iron ?or!te» tli© ori^iiua o^mor of tii» claia
mod oa» would %» avallitbl* agaiiist am plaintiff,
'thit 0Yid«»e<i vS^ymA tJukt tto nooeUi £ue>d &0r(^Kaadise for
the prioe 9f vAkicdi suit was b3*cug}it»wer« oositruotGd for la^ defendant
ia Caie@€:o, Ally 24« 1914; tltiat tiv» eulDJoet atatter tbero^ im»
eixtooa broajt «»$•» of a oertain dosi^^ ndii^ were to be fumii^tMd
?• 0«' B« OilcMaga* at tlic ^rioe of |7& Qudx^ f!be cTideaoo^ ^ thlxik*
oenelu^ivoly oatatolialiody iihat tit® contraot mm Mtido in Chiosigtty
Illinois » and that an alleged in the ^^fid^icrit of laoritst ^^ J^lmCr
City Osnaaaeatal Iron ^^ggpany from «Tul^ :5| 1914« to January 9»
19159 snM doing lKi»ino@8 idlthin the at«te of Illinois •
The trial court f ouwl &a faoto that eaid Iron ' dapaay vao
a forsign coz-por^iiiion* orn^suKiaed under the twtm 9i the ^>ta||t «f
MinneootAt for the tr«jieaoti«!i of hua^ioefts for profits that it iwa
not authorized or liccsaaod to do ^dinosa la the ^t«to of XUinoie;
th^it it had not iMen adsiitted into the itate of Xlliaoie for the
par^oee Of tysHMacting hti.'iiinotsij or exoroiain^i its aorporate powers
or franchioee; th«tt the aeoretary of the atate of Illinois h»d not
ismiod a eertifiod eopy of the td&arter of ssdd oorporation or a
oertifieate of authority for aatd oorporation t© de 1iuain»»B in
But the trial o^mrt x'^fueed to hold facte* aa ro9S«Bted»
hy dofendant, that the ocntraot in >iaoation vaa aadft mui exaeutod
in tiha 3tate of lllinoin{ th»t it waa to \n -^Ttwrm^ ixi the
•3-
otate 9£ IXlinei^i tlint it w^ not ii»lw»9tattt oowaorev; th&t
tlM smtters aBd thiags dent under smid ctmtaraot ««r« nttt latexw
atat® easHaerodf ai}4 aa&6 a fi&dln^ for tbtt pX^atlfl, «jid
caterod JadipM^nt fof Xhe smmmt olaimsd*
XT the trao^ii^ctien wu» one ia lut^r-etnie ^mrnvtm^
Vm fin&ixm and Jud«pgs«ttt of the o«uPi ims oorreot» .^t "s^ter^ y.
Picture iTrsrSBiQ .j<^%> 251 111. 610. If tbe oontVi^iot iMiro stted on
in Ite vx^'^lo^CHis oant^)^l@t«d th9 mmssfaotiu^ vd.tbinat the ::its&t«
ftf ths goedft eontraoted for, and the ohipuect of the goods frmt
tlin atate «f mxmeL^eta into tlie Jtate of IlXinoiUf th«a the
trfiaaaetiftn au^^t be held to hme ^men en^ im i£it«r»ata.tft cennerfMi*
■^Plfmdifpt^ ;-!09 111. ;i]^. 340,
<« think the 1^ttz*dtta «f e9t£ii>l3a.i!3hixi^ the affiraativ*
d«feiime M»t up liy tlifi t^u'f idaTit or Mttrita* asi stiMiiided^ wao en the
defetidaaty aad ih«^t 1^ t^mrt mm therefortt ^uutifi^d in i'todias
that thA MUftgatAOB of the affidacfit that the traasftction w&a not
in inter* fttaie GOtaoaeroot had not iMian ostiibliflthed* 3?elta Btut Co.
lo evidi&aoe o^ tmy othex* disfooM was offoyod eond Itei
^udj^^ttt <sill ti\si:e€if<i£i6 'be affimed*
BanM8» P. jr., and arldley» J.t ofm^or*
:i04 • 2S3&7
Vlt. y. QB&M,
J?l«lntiff in 3Srr©r
MABi: LSVY A8X> AHlifim 0.
M*|^iurtn«rft tradlni; at
LSVY A8i^ BitOlH iiS &nti
SimCPXAV »)7BL Aif^ Hp:i
CC^KIPAinf, a oorporiiUon»
D»fen<|Rnt# in Krror.
KRROR TO
09 CHI CJ AGO.
219 i.A. 653
MH, Bmsimna justice TAH^OB 4«liyer<'d thm
opinion %f the eourt,
Ob MMjT 83 • 1916 • th« plaintiff brought suit
agalntt th« d*f«iiciant0 for the return of tho sua of ^33.33
ivhlel-t it ims «Xaiai«d >iy hia he hRd paid ao tli« first au»ath^
r«at for oertain pronioos. Xho eause was triod vithout a
Jury and on J'uly X9, i9X6» Judgment vaa •nt«red fiadinc
tiM iasuos ai^inat th« plaintiff.
Zn him otatonant of olaia tha plaintiff tot tiy
that en April 12 , 1915 « h« paid to th« d«fen<irmts» i^rk
hmry Broth«ra, |333«3S to apply aa thu firot aeatho ront
for a oertain «tor«« boing the ground floor of Ho. 17
South JDoarlwm atroet. n^iioh vaa to he used V ^^i* >^* •
■OTing pieturo theatre; that at the tisM ho wao not adriaod
that it vouid he unlairful under the city ordinanofc; to con*
duot a noTiag picture theatre upon thOB« prenieee; that
the defendanta did leaov of that faot; that ha paid the
Money relying upon the right to use and enjoy the preaioea
for a moriag pioture theatre; that at the tiae of the pay«
Bftat of th« noncy th« s«mioe^ ^rop«aa Hotel and Heetaurant
Comptuny ooaupied thtt pr^saises rI>6T« the flr«t floor of tho
•tore ftt J40. IT i^uth B^ avibom Street ar and for a hotel with
Bleei»lag roo»8 and apartmente; \h&t it wao proTlded In an
ordinandi of the Oity of Chioa^o (Claas 4o, Geo. 930 to 332)
that *H(j roea or hall uoed for the purposes of Olaoo 4o here*
after ho Installed underneath anjr llTing or sleeping rooms* **
Xhat the defendants knowing that a moTing pieture theatre
was unlawful in that plaoe nad knowing a lease th«»reafter of
the pr<Mioeo would he illegal, th« plaintiff, relying upon
the pronisos and aosuranees of the defendant, paid to than
the SUM of #i3S,39; that th» plaintiff suhsequent to tho
execution and delirery to him hy the defendants on April 1S»
1919, of the reoeipt for #833, 39, and before an aetual
leaao was oxeouted and dellvere<l to them notified the defend*
ants that the ueo of the premises for a moving pietjure theatre
was prohihited hy the eiV ordinaaees and dsmanded that the
defendants return to him the |933*33; that the d«nand «aa
mot oMvlied with*
On Juno 9, 1916, the defendants fUed an affidavit
of merits stating that %ym plaintiff on April 12, 1919, paid
to Mark L«Ty and Brothers, the sun of ^99* 33 for the first
month's rent of the premises in question, and that tho pro*
position to leaao, as set forth in the reoeipt of April 18,
1915, was ao OOP ted by the Saratoga European Betel and Restaia-
rant Oompanyj that at the time of the entry into the lease
that 90Bg;>any occupied tho floors and prmnlses of tho build-
ing ahOTo the ground floor and conduoted therein a hotel ooa*
eisting of living and sleeping apartments; that the plaintiff,
before he entered into the agreement, was fully informed and
oaq^ressly advised by Mark Levy, one of the defendanto, on be-
haXf of the SftX«t«8» ]Surop«an }ktt«l nnd Ht^etaununi 0». , itet
tlw^r« va« an artlinanef^ prohibitiac acTiag plotur« halle uadar*
n^ath liTing or slaapins roona; imd tliat the room knami a« 17
Horth j[}ear)N»rn aWaot tma under liTlag and alaapiac quartera;
that th« plaintiff Infomad Jtai^ hm^ thgut ha hFfd kno-«rl«dga
•f thoae faetst lM»th of th« ordinance and the condition of
the prenlaes, and otated that his arehttaot and eontrsiotor
aould ao arraai^a the property that a Iloenise or penal t oould
ba obtained; that thei plaintiff being fully advised aa to the
nsittera aet forth persuaded and Indueed aald d<^fendante to
enter into thie leaaa; that said defendants relying on the
ability of the plaintiff to carry out his plans so as to
render said preaULses eapable of being used for the purpose
intended in a lawful and legal nanaer entered Into said leaaa;
that by reason thereof the defendants were prerented froa sa«
curing and obtaining other tenants until after the ea^irsi-
tion of a portion of the firet aonth of the lei^se and by
reason of th^^ .failure of the plaintiff to deposit the sun
of $10,0CC«0O aa proTlded for In said leasa on or before
April 22, 1915 • the said sum of $838.as vaa ferfeltad to the
defendants as oredited in liquidated damages for a failure af
the plaintiff to perfens said agroanent on hie part.
fluraa witnasaaa wfrm oalled: Ita. J. Crook, plain*
tiff, Margaret Jaoobs and JJaniel S. MulToy. There was offered
in aridence the reaeipt vhioh was giren to the plaintiff by the
defendants* UmA Xaiyy and Brothers, which is as follows:
*R«aalTed of Willian J. Crook, eheok for 1839.33
an the Claiiweed Trust ik Sarlnga Bank, payable to our
•rdar, to apply aa the first son the rent of the term
aa proTlded for in the leaae, which I imrm signed of
even data herewith for the store known as Xo, 16 S.
Oaarbom Street, to be uBe<3. as a Mowing Vieture theater.
to b« r«fim4<Ml if th« proposition is re^eeted 1^
th« Bars toga Suropcem Hoi«l & Keatfturant Conptuoiy,
or mjf referenoes are not found satisfactory.
It is axpresflily agreed \.ii&l in the «vent oaitf
laafM) is «e««9te4 l»y the ovm^rs and I f»il to deposit
th« 0tt« of #10,0CC«C0, as proTid«d for in eaid Itase,
on or b«for« April 2Snd, 1915, that said sum of
1833* 53 shall be forfeitod to us a« agr««d and liqui-
datad daaagss (and em t as a panalty) for agr failure
to perform said agreetaent en ay part« thc^^eby waiT*
ia£ all olaima of erery kind and nature against us»
the lessors and the presdsea**
Tltere was also offered a eopy of the lease dat«4l
i|Kril,12, 1915, and signed Saratoga Buropean Bstal k Best.
CM»« « M, Sebree, Pros. W»« J, Crookse«
TlMi lease provided for a tens beginning Majr 1«
I916, »nd ending October SO. 198&. for a total rental ef
$ payable in installaents of $a3S*33 on the
first day ef eaoh oonth* said premises to be used as a
msTing pieture th«stre and for m ether tise and purpose,
tkere was also effer«4 in evidenoe a "rider* to the lease
vhieh proTideA, asMmg other things* that the lessee before
April 88, 19l9« and prior to th« making of any eontraot for
the remodeling ef the premises nake a deposit vith some
reeponsible bank in Ghieage satiefaotery to the leec'ors fer
the eum of #lo,000.00$ that that sum of $10, COO. 00 shall
be iMld, applied and disposed of bgr said bank holding said
deposit as follows:
"Until the lessee shal furnish let^feore vith
building set of plane and speoi float ions for the
resMideling of enid premises whioh sh«iia have the
staap and approwal of the yarious departraents
in the Cit>' of ahioags eerert^d by the Tsirlous
•rdinaaoea eOTeriag sueh r«Diodeling and iaqrrove*
ments. *
Xt is further prorided in th« "rider" that said
lessee will at his own expense oomply with all ordinanees
in maJlng all said al teriltioBs , ehfing e or iaqprotrements.
• 5»
It is th* «Yi4(»ae(» of t}t« plaintiff that h* 9am
Jbutk L«T)r April IS, 191S, in ref«reno« to an a4T«rUa«BMBt
that appcarad in the ^rlVunaj tJDat he ap9lt« to bim in rogazil
to renting Bo. 17 South Searbem otroot and aoin^* it for a
noYing pieturo ahov; that Lot/ oaid he. Oroide t itevln have
to 8«e UlosJaoo^a who wae a«er«tMi>ry and nanagor of thf
Saratoga Hotol; that ho oubsoquentl/ «a« Mioo Jaeolitai that
th« sseMDrandum and loaeo which verft offered in OTldenoe
irore signed on A.pril 12, 1915* and that on the sane day he
paid tl» ^833.33; that ^fore ho slgaod the lease JUtvjr told
him that a Mr, MulToy h&d }f€m to see MisE^aoelse and informed
her that a permit for the thSNutre oo ;ld be gotten and that
the pla<w oould he used as a thaatre, Thero is son* teeti*
fltf»nar f»r the plaintiff in regard to being informed bjr Levy
that the lease in question whieh was signed Lery did not
accept and that the defendf^nts had a new lease for him to
sign* hut as no suoh lease is in eridenee the subjeot ia
ianHStterial and irrelevant.
The plaintiff fuzther testified that two or throe
days after the lease was signed he aso^^rtainod froai Kelly*
aa inspeoter of thaatres, and Olson, his assistant, that ho
oould got no lioense to conduct a thaatro on the premises.
He also testified that he did not kriow that 17 South i»ear«
horn street was wtdor hotel promisos.
On eross*oxamination the plaintiff testified that
he asked MulTi^ if the prcoaisee oould he used for a theatre
and what it mould ooot to reeonetruet and equip it; that
HttlToy looked it 9Vtr and told him it would ooet |10, 000*00
to oquip it for a theatre; that he was never told before
he paid the #833.33 that a saoTing picture theatre eould not
f.f**?*
.6.
b« eonetuot«4 »n ih« pr«Bis«*s be«ttt»t there w«r« sl*«9ias
•9«rtm«nts aImt*. On vAirmot •xaoiiuition the plaintiff
t«8tifl«d that MulTey inT«8tlKat«4 th« building f«r hia
ana r«port«d that a p«nait oeuld ba gatttn,
fha vltaaas iSargarat JaM>b«, treasurer and i&aaagar
of th« Saratoga Hotel & Keetaurant Co, tcKttifi^^d that »ht
vas faauLllar with tm ^rtmXmmB known a* XI {>auth Baarbem
«tr««t and that th(>r« ara slaaping and llTlag rooac 0'r«r
said pramlsas whioh are under the aeiMseBient of th«> Bara«
toga Hotal.
The witness ])emicl S. iSulrey, oalled bjr the plain-
tiff testified that prior to the time thst the plaintiff
told him he had th^? deal dLeaed up and had ten or twalve
days option on the plaee he vent over to the Saratoga B&tel
and found tlwre were liTing and sleeping quarters right abave
the store rowt] that on eaoh eeoaeion that he had a sosaioa
t he re v;as
with the plaijBtiff^a talk about the sleeping or liTing
rottM aboTe So, 17 South i>earb«m street; that s«Ma tino
about the Middle of Mar oh, 1915* the plaintiff Tisitc^u his
effioe and asked him if a e#rtain building on daarbom street
known as the Saratoga Hotel eould be renoAoled into a theatre}
that he told hia he did not knew; that he then disoussou with
the plaintiff how smoh none/ he Intended to put in it, the
aneunt of weric the iuTestigation wo Id require; that the
plaintiff told him he was sincere and thst the whole thing
depended upon whether or not the building eould be recoodeled
into a theatre; ihat he. Malrey, then want to the hotel and
asked Miss Jaoobs* the nanager, if she would leas^ it and
whether the plaintiff had called to se? about it; that she
said sha had beard of it. and that if it oould be raondelaA
-7-
in aaoordaiKHi vlih th« l«v for « thiAtr« b)m ^ould r«nt it;
that «h« A»lc«4 him «h«tl»r •r not it eould l>e> done; that h«
tlM»n ha4 another oonferonoc wiUi tho plaintiff and told hin
tlMt He had a«eal£ien Jaool>s and that nine »« d she iirouX4
r«nt it for a theatre and that hf would r«port to him in
two or t>uro« day*; that he sont an onginoor who vent through
the entire building and in tioo or throo days when the plain*
tiff oalXed a«ain he, the witneae, told him it would ooet
from $10,000.00 to 115,000.00 and that th^ plaintiff said
that would l»e all right thac he tma readj and villiag and abXo
ko enter into the oontraot *if it ie possible for it to ho
built*; that he, UulToy, vent to the building department
ftgaia and roqueeted the building oeanissioner or the (shief
theatre iaspeotor to qo over And examine the building with
hlmj that that was done and he was adrieed that it oould
be retoedoltd taii upon th<^lr reooi»»end&tion he so reported
to the plaintiff and prepared to arrajigo for a preliminary
plan; that t)w plaintiff then told him ''you see I at/i only
promoting this enterprise I haTea*t the money myself*;
that he then learned for the first time that the plaintiff
was xinable finanoially to carry out the projeot; that the
plaintiff oaid he had a party who was able to furnish
$12,000.00 and tliat now that he knew the conditions he
would get to work on it and oae him, (:CalTey, in a day or two;
that the plaintiff «amw baok about two days later and said,
"X hare eXosed the leaee. X have got the situation tied up."
That he aXeo said *I had to do that to proteot myself. I
hare only $2,000.00 oapltal to put into this preposition and
I expeet to get a half inteiest in thie proposition**; that
he said that he had it tied up under a ten or twelve day
^'tfntxXmiJiVlK. 6 -i
-:< i.
i^ibf 0»lMi oi
■;f^ *»l*.
;i> ■'■. •■•MiSfJ -It
-art «if iJarfj
-a.
•ptloa. tfulTty further t«sUfi«d that the «}»l9 aattwr
fell through and that the plaintiff told hia that th« man
he had in b1ii4 liad fall an dawi on his prevdaaa ee that ha wa»
tuttrvy ha had glran hia, ^Mkrmy, th«« trouhl«> and vishad ta
know if *^ulTiQr kaev of anybad/ elaa; that ha, Mulvajr* ra^
farred him to a maftar of p&rtlaa who were in ihot auurket for
such thinge; that tfX^iy time he had a saeeion with the plaintiff
from the fir at tina ha mat hin tha one vital point th«gr talked
ahout wae the ■ leaping and livini; reome ever the etore room
at Mo, 17 South Daarhem street.
At the eloaa of the eTidenoa the follaving oolloquy
oooujrrads
"MR. dfiUfttilBi Will your Honor give rae an opportunity
to aupport »y poaition* I aak for a oontinuanoe.
tW CGUH7: 1 oan only go hy the evidenoe; just
hy wlBiit has bean diaoleoed hy the evidence.
MB, (ilUIGSaS} Before your Honor haa rendered a
d«oision I want to be perzaltted U call Mr. Xridfeeoa m»
a witBeas here; I want to be perioitted to call in the
building eoaniesioaer, Sri ok eon.
"SM CODmi He is not here; and I cannot eontinue
this case.
MH. OILMCRB: X was taken by surprise.
fK QOumt Surpriae or no surprise I eannot con*
tinue tMe ease.* z
The plaintiff* e oauao of aetion as set forth in the
Btat«sou»at of olain is based on thn theory that he was entitled
to reoorar baok a deposit of $833*33 beMiuse the defendants in*
duoed hia tc pay over that sua under pn agreement the objeet
'ifi fe-Ki
•9»
•f i#iioh WR* proMMt«d hy law. Suoh wa» the aHalm viMn tK«r
«»utt« wfts tried in thn lower court,
Tte tftitiadny of auXtajTc the plaintiff* b vitneaa»
•b»«« oenoIuMlvely that the plaintiff knew th»t the priM&leea
ia <|tt«etiOR wer« under llTlng and sleeping quarters and that
thff d«f«adant, Mark L«Ty, did not oono«al that faet from hia.
MulToy t«fltifl«d that eT«r^ tlau» he had a eoaeioa with th«
plaintif ! the prinoipal thing the^ talked about «ao the sl«i9«
iag or 1 lying roeois over th^ store reoa« It is obTiouB» tberow
for«» that the plaintiff *fii case* ae made out upon the trialt
entireljr diepvoTod %im theory of illegality ao set forth ia
tlm atataeaent of al&ia« In thie ^urt the plaintiff aev
Tattoes for the firat time the ol*.iB that he ie «^ntitled ta
recorar baeaaaa tlui defendants repudiated and rejected the
jprapoaad laaaa. the evidence, however, dees not eupport
«'W9n that contention,
Fraa what th«> raeord oaatalaa, it ia our opinion
that the plaintiff paid the dapoait of #«»9.33 belieTiac
that he would he able to go on and oarxy out the agreeaaat
whieh ha nada at the time af th^M4naant» hut that aub*
aatiuentlj he found that hm «aa uaahle to do »a« and thea
aought without good reaaon to rtoairar haak liie aanajT*
Finding no error in the record the Judgment ia
af f i rmad*
e«e<MnMMi, j, ahb trnmBm, 9,
i mi \
'Hi'i
130 • 2f»M
/
SmSAMlM SOmARf^.
i|pp«lle«
sLiAS TiBtamsxmm,,
)
. 1
M«»ieii»AI. COURT
) # CO? oaiCAOC.
219 I.A. 654
opinion of tnai eourt.
6a i^rU 16, 1916. th« plaintiff deais«<i, ^
writt«n Imt,—, 604 north 4^ar£t street* Chleago. %/& tlM»
dcf«ndftitt, im$il i^ril 3G, 19£0, f«r s r^ntel of $4aOC,00,
to ^9 paici in Si^ntlily iBStellseat* ef $d€,CO«
SomttiiM ftl^ut %Ry 15* 1918* thia 4ef«^<mt ejideava^r*
«d to ebtaia ft oaae«^llatlen of thak% leaa* «»d th« 8r«atlea ia
its itt«a4 of a faurtaan yaar leasa at a rantal ef |7&«00 a
aanth. Aaoardiai^ly a fOiiX'taaa jrear laaaa «aa dnum up. and was
al9i«d Itagr ttea defendant os i(«|East 1, 1918, and at tl^t tiaui
daXirerad to tha plainUff.
It is ttl Btaad lagr tlM» d^fendaat tJwt at the tlm* of
tha BOfffttiatioB for tte fourteen jroar leaea. Me rent hod ^aaa
paid up to July 1, Itia, and that tho plaintiff ai^raad in oeii-i
•ideratiOB of tius ehaaso i« th« l«»aeia« to allov Ma or«dit
for tJie rant for the aoath of July. 1918. On AofttBt 1, 1918,
ihm d«fonnaat paid tlio raat for that aoath, hjr a eheek for
l73»oe and a eradit for repairs of #2.00. fhat vao at tho
rato spaoified in tho aov loaao. On Saptoaiher 8, 1918, tho
•2«
Amt«n<Aaai% 9cd4 ihe rent f»r that iB0»tb lay^ e}i««lE f»r |75»^
•as 98 OetolMT SI, 1913, he ««« «v«4ite4 «iih |7&*C0 for the
r^fit of i^at i»ath.
It is agiNi^d \Qr €Ouae«l for tMth pmrtimm thst th«
fourt«e8 x^Htr lefts* is »»t in feree; a»d, aXm, it i» «4>
niii«d Igr tlM dttFaa^aiit tlareugli e«itii»«l that h» eiF«4 r<mt
«t t^ mt« «f #ar^«oe per w»3itli for ttw »»aths of iloYf»%«r
aa4 J^e«a^«ir« 191S» wb4 Ja^nutiey, i9itc vnH&er the old loetoo.
thm Ti^mult i» %tm% the hX^m of the pialatiff at th« trial
«M for four tmnthsP rent at $86.00 ]Mir noaib« aad a l9«l«aoo
of fS.OO for oaeh of th« aeatho of iUtgttOt* B^ptmtxSamt and
OetoVor, 1918. aakiag i& all, t»g^timr with ISO, 00 attoraoy**
fees, %hm was of i38S«^» tto amoimt for «lsi3h Jtt^gaont vos
fimtily entered wad froa «M«di this apfteei has Ifteen talces.
tistm defemleiit »ow ooatoado that, as a matter of
iair» the rentftr tke aeath of ?uXy into released and die*
ohavsod ty tip mutual aots and agreeamits of the parti«»s.
Bttt that eentOBtiOB, in viev of the eridt^oe
i»xd th» adaissioBs of the defea^baat. is nov ttotOMible, And
the sfOM is true as to the <»mt6Btic» that the defendant did
BOW ooe & haloaee of fS«00 for mt&t of the M»atho of August,
£»^tiRad»or aad Ootoher, 191.8. At i» tiaw aao the fourte^i
y&ut loaoo ia foroe. lsviB« adadtted tJwt th«> defendant
oved Utre* aoaths rent at #80,00 for i3m montlm of ffeT«d»er.
end ji^eeeadMr, 1918, sad Janaasry* 1919, it tmjf net now ho
reaaonahly elaiaed hj the defen<iaat that his rent was aot #80.00
tet #75.00 per aioath daring Aucast, SoptoailMr aad Oetohor, 1918.
As to the oOB tent ion that it was orrottootts to alio*
180.00 attorney* s fees;* that natter is now put forward for
ih* tirmt, tia«. th€ ori^insil ^ud^jn^nv hy oonfeiiKieo wa» for
#S70*00« and &» Vvlnraftiy tt« ISIS, «ft«r s Jiur iTliU awl
v«rAi«%« tfurlag irM«)i time th» oriitiiMiI Jii4«a«Bi stetA mi
••sarity, » ^u4iiMnit for ;^38&«0i;i «»• •»t«r«d« C^ Miir<A 8.
19X9, mpmT^ntl^ to rweUfjr tise rmmt^i and awle* th« pr««i«*A»
4it48M»a% ^m i1ft« fitw of f 38ft, 00 WBA ihfta •i!it«r«4«
At the ttiml •ri««a«« «»• iiitr04tuo««l te tl»» •ff««%
i» waf«»»»liic lh« Ji»%n«iii%* ir»ft |ftO,&0« IMi4«Er t>li« «ir«M>
tt«n«««« ilt« l«a«t pi^vi41iig for Att«migr*» f«*«c tht itt4i;*
ntst^ ^ oonfe««ioii tmvliifi 1se«ii «ni«r«4 And wtlrstt^iiiiftfiUar t«i»
th« i»tt«niigr*» t—m w»r» morth $&0*(K}« ftA4 finnlljrt ^^« JuAft-
ttcnt l^r oonfr^eftiea lM»in^ TKMt«tf %» 9*riAt %h» r<»*«alurar of
% timtX Ju<l^*e^» wlileb difrer«4 &nljr in r vvf^ •ss«ai «■«««%
ff«m tJa* •rlKiOAli ;hi4|piMifi( Kgr oonff-vttiea. «• itr* tf Ui»
opiaion ih«t »> «rrftr wui eiMaait%«4 in dlvvliii mti^rnvy**
■JTflrmod,
o*o€miii« .r« Asm fscmsca, j, cc
i%tl9».*
151 k S54C&
App«ll vc •
Ap/«llaiit,
APPEAL FH€K
COOK CCWIfY.
219I.A. 654
MB, PH^msiia JUSSXOl TAY).C« delivered tht opinion
• f the Qourt*
ClaialQg tliAt h« lufui a ihr«« /•«r oentraot of
omployaont an«a that ilio (I«»f«iid8tnt dieo)aurc«d Mm liftfore
thtt cjcpiration of thut timo, -without (»U8«* th« plaintiff
brought ouit aund r<»oov»r«d judgment in the mm ©f ♦400»€)0
«nd coets. thie app«4'9il ie thrr^-froia.
On July 12, 1913. thi! plain Uff and the dofomd*
ant enter«d into a written tt^roem«;nt w^roTiqr the plaintiff
vno antitilojrod bjr the defendant oc»ap«nQr* a aanufKOturer of
ftrtifioial llmba, for throe years from that date ao a
ttaohiniot at $25»Q0 per week. Ihe plaintiff \tn^mn to work
undi^r the af)»rosald oentraot on July 15. 1913. Cn Cotober
SO. 1914. he wat notified. in writing. ¥y the defendant that
owinK to an ouMinKOndy the hoard of direetoro h»d deoidod
to mako a out of IC^ on all oalariee and ooofisleaions froa
and after the firot day of Dooemhor, 1914.
It 1ft the oTidK^noe of the plaintiff that upon
reooipt of that notioe he wont to Re«l«y. the preoident
of the ooapaay* and had a oonvoraation eitn hia eoneeminc
B!0-
the |^rope»*4 T»4«eti(»ii. as &!•» )ia4 « eeBT«rs«tioa with
ttmrpii^ «»tf Tr«s«li, vhtt were »«ai %Qr Edwlsy to »•<» If th«y
9o%ti4 act ••ttX« the »att«r with hin. !^)»» plaintiff ««/•
th^t th« dagr «ft«r t» firing stttlee ftttrp^ hsind^d to his
hie eheek and aftl^rrt Msb what h« tma ti^iti^ to <los If h* tnui
goiae ^o aeee^t thft «tt, sn4. that h«« the ^aiatiff, tmmwv^rni
that h« «aa aot; that Har^kv th«B aaid, «Xta ail off if you
408* i a«ft*pt th« eat.*: ili^t en Eeatfajr nazistiiig he repcrtedi
to w&tk fl»d was told ^ tr^veh. that he ^ui6 ge ta wevic if
he asaaptail the out Imt nat eth^r^sa; th«t he r«]»erted a«
fueater aaA VHteasday of ths aasKe wctic aad r«««:iTe4 the aHWi»
MMnrar; that he thas aotight an4 ohtained W9A elaavhara, moA
dujriikg th« Ufa of hie acatmet frftm that verk Mimad $a7S.81«
!rha plaintiff's wark «aa makiwm staal %ti^9 for »i^utatias«»
•ad ahaa part*.
Heviagr* the preaidast «f the dftfeiMSaat <»a9«flgr*
teatified that the {>iaiAtiff • after ha eaata ta najrlc ia Jaij*
X91S, «arlc«»d atmidily antil H«v«ah«r ar SefiN>>ah«r of that
jreaar, »h«ii he vaa alM»«at for i«« or tluree veehat vithaot
attthoritgr frwa th^ aee^MB^S that during that time he «aa
driakiais; that ia Umjf, 1914, the aaae thiag ha^jtened; that
he did aot hter* ma^ talk with the plaiatiff on Cotahar 31 «
1914, hat that oa Mvaa^tev 6, 1914, he aaat far hta aad ia
afaakias of the aaatraet of m^lajraent aaid to the plaia*
tiff *Whan a i^tioe «aa iaaaad to the aaplo^eea eeneerBiac
a oat ia ealarieo wm4 «Mu^aaiaaa we did net oc-at«B^lata
you, «a auppoaa jrou had harae aaaae enough %o knew wo would
aet iasao a natiee to all of th@ na^lajoiNi aad fat jrau la
«i oxoeptifm ia the aotic«, I have jr^eeiTod inforoatioa
fr<»s %lm ctey mud I hRV« Tmi«ii»4 th<»r« s^jptMilf aad you )»▼•
end<^avor«d io arriiiy tta« «ai^le7'*»s •saiaet the eoaq^Mqr «h«n
your iiiM «Ms4 b«ft «8^eaT0r is * portion of ^oiir ^Hitrsoi
to pui^ th« ^»a|»fidr>7 out of iMioiiiess. You arm tiiet worklvm
f «r tb« iwyBy, A tdt^^sk; mrnitn y&tt fr«3i tl» wuMig«r»*
l'U« evl4«B««! c^vs tte«t Although it vao eiftla«di ^ aovltgr
ttet til* plaintiff vfts «-v«y ^H» or thr«« ivcc^a is DaoCMlMnr,
Z91S« tMd a«kjr in Stay. 19i4, ii« wmnt to wotic tktt«irv&r49
the a«se aa uturl.
Oa «ma«*«auMiiiMiiffiR !le«i4i^ t«^atiri«4 that tha
piaiatiff vac e«tllc»d tt tH« offie^ aa aaeataftt af Ma general
eoiMttat; tlnat tte otttting ef plaintiff *a »i^«» ted nothins
ta 4o with hi » disoiaiinia; tliat he aaa <ll»e))az«a4 1»aiMiiM>«
af his **i^ltati@n*; ftttting cwplayaaa «gaiaat tha aaaipanjrs
alwsijre talkidg ai^laat %h« oca^^aay,
A witaaae Sehrea^er tastifie4 th&t th« vaale aftar
tha plaintiff qait voxic h« told the vitaae^ that he ima
coins ^« P^^ tha aoM^Mqr out af Imaiaeaa; that at tha tiwt
tha plaintiff aaid that, th^ra wt»r* thjf*a or four athar •»•
H*3r»«» »raa«its that tlw plainUff aaid that ihty e«ul4
all pat tt9 ocaa iBsaaay far attam^y** faaa mmI tto»n »aka
tha aM^ttmr pay than diYid«nda,
A altnaaa, Bayla. a femar assplayaa mhm aarlcad with
Om plaintiff at t^ Una tha latter was aisployad hy tha
dafaaiiaat, taotifind that tha plaintiff laft the d*f enfant
ahaut eatohar Sc ^r St, 1914; ttet hm mv him tha vaak follei^
iiW; that the plaintiff talked to his ahaut oontfitiona and
e«t in vas**S ^^«^ ^^« i^Iaistlff u&td th* verloBeii si^uld net
sta^sd for ftnytMRS Iilc« ihtit: tH«t lift lir>.d various itHkm wiXh
th« pl«iatlff; Xh&X the l«tt<(^r 9«U4 en one eoeAftlon )»e vialMi^
to £9t tHe boy* togethf^ to put the eOHq^aiagf eut ef biiete«e«
•e tH«9r eetiltf appoint » r«e<&iT«r.
On era8«*«XftmiBaticii thf* %itaees t^&tlfledi t.Iitet
lM» teld tJM pr««i<i«nt of th« defea^ant &eaa^sa^ th&t ih«
plftiatiff tfae tvjiJig te g«t « receiver ftpp«ia%«a; th»t tlw
IpXaiatlff « 0ft«r he i^« dieelAXg#«l, t«l(t Itlm th«t li« h»4 *
oimtiaet t^r $29% 1^0 » v«^ iajsgI w%9 g^im to swke tlhaai llT*
«V» to it.
A vitae»«« Friiiee* anise teetifi«Nl tMi 1m kiiev
ef t«e oeeftBioee when the px&intiff «»• eff werk for sffTcral
neoks,
7he plaintiff testified in r^Vattal «&d sontra*
4iotftd the t<>«tiM»«gr ef Mo«l«yf den^iac thut th« lattor tseat
for hitt te $e te hie office or «aid vimt h« he4 b«ea geiaig
ftr»«d»l %hm facteiy g«ttlcME foadft %& Mr^ a I«igr«r awi 4«iggriim
l^ettiiig druak. At tb« dose ef the »vi<i«ae« vh7<M» inetntertions
were «iir«i3 for tl»e pleintlff Rn«i six for the defeaci^iit. Sl»
|i»7 brought in a Tordiet »g&laet the d^feadaat for ^4CC.OO
ciR<i j«<%m«at vae eiit«r«<3 oa tlMt t eaouBt,
flM 4«f«m<in»% eentetMie that the pieiatiff failed te
enqiljr vitii th«» ooatrAot ef ^f^t^l^raeat; that ]»« did not ^Ive
Mf: tUm and ^et eadeaYor to tii« iat«>r<'ri ef the d«>f^nfinnt
moT seapiy at all tia«Ns aitii the dtr«»etioae «ad iaetruetieae
ef thi* ^feadaat end d^i>ort hiaself ae lNifitviii|r hie ]ppeitioa«
1i%et evideaM^ there waa en that smbjeet, tbet is, ae to vhat
tte pXaiatif f did aad vhethar }h» ooadaoted hinaaif as an eat*
{>l»jr«» chould* «aa •ttteitUd to the jury uaniisv 9ro|>*v ta«lurwo»
tloas tfjtd uttlef»» «• «y« a1»X« i« 4tH»itoiiiA« vhMit tluit rri4«ii<w
el«^jpl/ aad i!»al,f«Bt.Iy does »•% »»9P«rt t^ ir«rtli'9% wv «r«
Tlw !»r««id(»at ef ike d«fAntl»^a% oMUMoiy t«»%ifi««
Uw ifttt«r «»• 4icel3ftf)i«4. anil a oflprvful 0Diiftldi4!^jr»Uott of
t>li« eirmwHi^sEiio*** «ir«ii mm r«9l,i«d la;^ thi@ i^r^iiidc'ai of th«
roftl rMuica for iiM» 4i«o^rgo of IHo filaintiff ««o not A«ro»
liotion on iho piott of the lattor Irat o doolrc on tho yart
of %hm eom^mof lo out down tmj^mnmmm. It th# ^unr 1»oli«T«d
tho tosttaNii||r of th« plo3,atlff » oad It mojr ooolly ^toTo dono
•o, Xim dof«»oo oot vk» \qf tb« ooj^pioiijr foiX.«d. We Iioto matm»
fully «ion»idorRd t^l tho ovidonoo in t)»ft oooo san^ fool tttuttd
to I«t t^ JitdKatont otsnd*
8o«w| oo«t«ntloB i» mad* 1^ ttee d«f«» «»i «o to tho
oaottst of iho Tordiot, 'ih« only figuroo ooitait^ttod (io tbo
JttXT^ of tlw doaogoo «^sd»«d wore |i^6S^«lSi and Ui* wtiouai
wMe^ h» oomod fr«M tho tiiso of Mo diooiiovgO until tho oob*
pimtlen of Mo oontroot, b«cla« tho oum of $8?it«3l. Xho diffor^
ono« Wtvodn thooo o;me»vmto is a lltvlo noro thon tho nnoiait
•f tho Tordiot iMid it oooaw ^uito oWiouo thot tho jury oi^
rivod at ito Tordiet bjr taking the ouhot.^ntii9tl dlff<?jr«noo ho»
twoon tho dowMPMi OL«i«od ond Ohm wnoMat oarii««d, Th# plola*
tiff testifiod tJhot ho originnUy bought |tOO*00 n«rth of
ote^ In %t» dofondont oonfMgr and thot ho hod boon imid
Ii00,00 thi^roon \mt it oortolnly dens not folio* tram that,
thot tho jiuy hoood its Tordlot on tho difforonoo hoioo«i
ths 000 1 of his •%mtk &m& thf» aaeiMt of his dividondo.
-6-
Xt ««• tHitQ el»i««4l that ife* OD-Jirt •rr«d in
insiruotlBc the Jury. Ab •acudnatidtt ef t)w ia«trtt«%ions«
baiw«Tcr» aliMivs ih«t ih«y were quit« strfnivlgr in f«T«r •f !
tilt defendant Mid Uuk% th« »rr«r« «lai»«d on Ms bofanlf v«r«
at Moat» trivial and insu>«taatial« j
I
blading nft amr In th* re««r4 tlia jM^pnant it
affi3M«4.
Afn«i0u»« j
0*Oafi)OB, J. AVi) XiK»801f 1, Qf|iaiEB«
i
X9l • 2544 •
\
MAX MmaSt \ I
M99*lUm^ I /
I
/
C©CK CCO»TT,
219 i.A. 654
of ib« oeort.
am 9iti§%mtimt $•• 19X«, »t \h» iiit*tr««otioii of
dMrtJStoa »▼•»»• ft»«a Ksaesaw 7ftrr»e« &it the 01 (/ of OMocMst^
to tii«« d»f««dftat «elli««A« 4iuKa«iQK VimX of tlk« plaintiff
ftiid fllfto iBjurliig t>i« r»lAiatiff ^mrnoriAtt^f, tli« plutntiff
¥7<iu«lat »uit, Xt nm» trl«4 befor« a iiurjr wml r^cultod in
ft Twrdiet and iUd«»i«»t in fucmr of th» i>lftitttiff ^n4 ^qgaiast
%}m d«f<'n<tjmt in th« w&» ef t2»C/C0»O0«
tJpoB tM« appcctti by vh« d<if •B«lanit fr«tt Uttt 4tttf»*
iR«iit, tl»« onijT oenl«nti«>a i>s th^tit th^ driT«T ol t.iii<^ <i4»t>tt4»
aiat*» Atttoaeliiltt mX %h» ti«« <if th« •lX«£«di nn^Xi^ntn^* wmm
n^l ih«r itie ftt^rrfltnt swir hl« •s«^iit and mis tm% «nK«««d in or
upon an^ dttty of« or for Idn, ih» d«f«fa(l«iit.
It i« ilM tlittox:^ ef tk« pleijiUff Ikat ob« MIoIimI
Moxsomett, i^to wso dxiTing ihft automobiXo ef tlt<4 dcf^'r^nat
«t ttw Uw« of uh> oeilision, #»■ th? i^j^i^iit of ww* d«>foad»
•at and iHt» aetuAliy oaij^god in » duty for th« def«nd»at
«t tJw timo of th9> aooitf*nt»
««-^
* «&tii«»» oa his li«lMdf • t#»stifiod timt, li«, th« def«iidABt,
miB •ii|pl«jr«di Ml a miimiiii^ laetPttcrtor »t Vim llltnoi» Aib*
wall ft )»rleklRjr«r; ihai oa th^ morning ef &9pt«nb«r 28, 1916,
h»t \h«> plftiaiiff, )^s Rt ih« Ulinois AUiletio OXiib at
about •ight a^alaci^ in this aiemiasi t)m,t be hs4 »o«<? talk vitli
lidllematrt viiA ref<rr«>no<« id Ux^ uaa af hla, ib« defendant*^,
autaaiabila} ibai ba did net 8«n4 iflmrvmtt angrvbarv vltb
%lm auioanbila; tb»i hff gava Ma^arwitt parmiaalan ta uea
tba attiomeblla thai merning %o go to <irorlc ta Me i^la8«> ef
«tt)^la)rta«nt aa th« Sarth aide, 8»tt«wbara ia tbn naigibartaead
•f ^hietTidimB tmmA m»A Wilaon avanua; tbat Mel^3matt*a buai*
naaa <»n tbat dajr «aa Xaaria4S brioie mad that bafora tbat ti«a
KaOwmatt baa barraaa^ hie (tutaiBabila nmytmrsiX timntu that ba
l»ai(l na thins for the aaa of it| tbat at th^^ Ua«< af tb«» trial
XaOaiwBtt was a fXjriae anaiicB ii>i tii^* ^nitftd ^tatas JlaYy at
Ra<d(««ay Bi»aa]l3 that hm «r« neTar flnsi^lajra^ by >Uja; that ba«
tba d«f«*n<3ftnt» a«rra» bad a abaaf faarj tbat «»a tb«» 4ay in
Viaation ba leanad bis oar to ^aziianaatt jviat aa a farar to
bia aa a friand; tbat tba rali^tion batwaan M«aalf and
li«2»ajmatt wmm puraly » »ooi«il en^i i^bat umewmutt bnd na
iat«ract la tba «ar la any <«ajr$ tbat ha nmrmr pnX4 bia angr
a»aajr or Mijr atb«r eaa»id(*rotioa for dyiviag tb« oajrt tbai
ka waa aaaaatmaad te djrlira tba car biaaalf* on radlirtat
aSfwiaatiaa, b« taatified tbat aa tba aaraiae af tb» day af
tb9 diaaatar ba got bia oar at tba «ara«a at 47 tb and Yi»»
aaaaaa; tint at tb« tisa b« aaa ItTing »t 4S»i Viac^-nnaa aTenat;
tbat ba baril KO£araott rada datra taan togatb^r in tb# oar aad
Uhat ba panadttad IU(ai>fti«att te go nar tb witb tba mw; tbat
HttDamatt van ta aoaa badk that aTanlnff tc» ^at bia aad tbsgr
««Ffi seiBg on eoal^ %}mt «T«rtii^s that !tiaNrrMit>t i*«iN»r
««rlc«4 for him at moot %i»mi ihat in driTiag 4«tm f««« i» ilw
taomlRg »eeM»tia« )»» weulti driir* «ii4 Bsetetls** MelMinaott «oaI4
<iriY«; tltet (li«^ Ai4 >ie( aXwijrii fio <le«n tog«tli«ir in tiw ssMni*
i«K> thfti •«■« s&xmiilies ^« ^^ d«f«Aaaat« %&iit«d t« ^ d«tn0i
fwirXjr and d» ilios« M»ming« JfaGU*jraM»tt hft4 ie uilr« tne eirft^t
<»r; Uhi.% oa the morrtlMg Is qaesllcn Efl£«jra)9%t 4r9V« il3,« <»sr
down with bSits th&t th^ onI|r yta<t«r«it»a4i>m as Uf vh»t «»•
to hRpp«!} tn tiie wtfaliis •f i^t (tay vft<^ th»& whi»B iileSensott
got thr<r^]& the ear «a« to ^ r«tani«*9 to Moi. th« plsuatlff.
TeraatldH at the lllinoit Athletio OXvth l»(rUre«ii tbe 4«f«a<ia«it
wad OS* ClmrXaa ?• aarrl;;!. X>)4^ isritneeft '<Nim, im i.irr«atigater«
ealletf 1^ i^ plaintiff* t^s^tifird that «hertljr lB«>r«re the
trial k« asd @n« 0^url«»6 I. Barris want to %Sx^ lllXaoxs Ath»
latla Olsdk asd »«t Vnn dafendaat in xki^ avisniag destart-^ant,
aad ttet h« bsari Barrla aa2c tl«i 4ef«(i4«iit if ii# was tito moi
9ho l!^d tJ^ a«4^d*st in §ept«nlb*«r« 191$, liwi tluit ih9 defesA*
afitt aai4« yaa; timt, tterrie t^Min a«k«si Mia If hip e«is«<t tlM
saehina; ttait Usm» dafi^sa^ttt aaid«y«a, an^ Uiat th« 4af»miftist
•ai4 that K«^l«ntt»tt «»« striTii^ the sffi»ahis«s tiKai the «l«f«>a4»
aftt al»a iuU4 that MoXfar^oit uruu on the 4af«»lattt*s aatjr at
tha tine t^ aoal4«nt ha^^satf*
TlMP d«f«s«aat taatifiad on hit! q»s Ir^half that«
an t,k^ aeaaaioa ref < rr«4 ta ^ ««m« t«a ai«« •»»« ta •«« hln
at tlita Illiaola Athlatia CXiAi thm% he 4i4 aat knav alt^»r af
tli«a; tife&t t^ ftltfar of th<^ t«« iiaid ha a^itOMt t% dieooaa th«
«a»« mkttk idM ^ut tl^t he, t)i» 4erefiaaist« rafaa^r^ to ^ aa,
«»• alw, <»atradist«d th« t«««tiaafiy af Wrm» that ha «iai4
te,4 b««n A fri«n^ ^f Mis Biaa« h» ^»c flft««tt ^eiurt 9t
JtjK* «h«ii )&« mm* a Jamier lat^Wr of tJstes Y.M.C.A. wl»^r« hfi«
drlTing <!Ars; thst h« dr«^« hl» xM»tl»r*« aa4iXl&« for i%baui
feur jreftir* \m% tJmt It* sH^v^r «m^»Xe;y«(i him. It ir- oeiitt«tf<»<l
^ eouas:#l for both partioo tlHit thm ^*fimBe§m&t is i»»t iiabl*
for t^ 9mgjki0iimc« of tbi^ ^SriVftr of Me ^'sttte^ioliile t»l<»s«
%h« driver ftt ii:»> tsjfti» of th« slX@ig«a a«sglig«sia« «rs^ ftitl^r
bis s-FTBiit or ftg«nt. Arki» v* ^&|fi&* ^S'' ^^* ^^^'« ^^*
it ie dL)idlA«4 on Irohalf of tli« dofoiadiAi tiuit th« &rf&%mT
wmlftht 9f %he eritfoitoe e1a©w© t&fti iJfc» «Srlver of tiio 4#f«a*-
aBt*e euto^@bil« mat aoitkeor tks oorYAxit »»r tho Agent of
tJEto distfrnxtdi^ni. mnA tbat In? w4M( ao v -vngj^ect in or aptm «»ar ^^^
of or for tfes cl#f»Kd»n$*
Xo ei»tt4»ntion ii'* aia:^« in regerd to t)io ftzt««t of
the ^>lftia%iff*o iajAri^s. nor «• to tMe Ae»unt of ^mukg^*
»«ard«4 Iter Ao to t^ »ir>^is^^«« of i^^ driver of tiio AutoaoMIo
At th^ tiao ot th« eoilioioB* Xi^ »oi<» ^tt#otion is* ««« tlw
tiriv«r, HoBoriiio tt« «t tbm tl<s« of the ooUioioA %S»m oorvAat •r
«e«at of t^ dofeaiiAjat. th« «it»«o» ««aA teotified thAt on
Ufm ^tardAy 1s>efor@ th« triol ia » eewroroAtioa wita tho do*
ff«i€(A]it tim latter s^d thAt Moisojraott* th« 4riT«r, «a« Ott
Hio, tiVB 4«f4ai4l!»)it*o daty. 1fh« «l<«'f@n<isiitt Afl4 Uei>rr3«Bttc
sooiAlljr, «»r« cieoo fri«tt^et ai$<l ixid l^'^^a for quito a wmi'fciny
of jrrnr^, thuf liet^n&mit otftt«^ that McO^raott wao a ^risle*
fttttSQWiiil* »n4 pAi4& «othl«ig for I^m? ttai» of it; vh&t )» l«%
nor A«^ oifhcr oonfticii^ri&tiom ter driving %H« «Mr« I'lw ti«t*n'Am
r«4« 4e«a t«wa %(»$*t^r fr»m 4Yth an4 finwnmtitt air«au« syik4 ii»«t
lift 9r«yikiii4Nl »0iSmrMm%% %& &fi north ^ith th« ears ^'^^ i$:«D«4m»tt
V9M t« «OMt« \»ft«d( )^l«ki «v«aiiii %e 0^9%, him AiHi t'R»^ «r«r« ^eiitg
<lrlT«s tlN»A «« ilMT sM»rnln«( ie Q«t«atioii M«l2«]r8K>it 4jr«v* tlur
9tMr 4ei«m with kliR{ tint i^4r &ViX^ vm&'^rteti^Minii «» i^ «rtet
««.(» to 'im»:j^mm In th« ire*Bi,n& ef t)Mt «iiijr iMk»t «!»<''« Mo^m»tt
g»t tHr^mi^h, tlM «ftr ««• te 1^ r«tum»4 i<» Mm* Ui« {^Iftiotiff*
Tl^* J«ryhave d«t«r®i»ttt fr^w tJ« «iri <£«««« thm
f»»a4«t »©•« iSatjr for Mm* Qt o©v,ijr»», if th©/ feeii.';-V«4 tim
t«ttU»ea(yr of »«»»• %»<; %im% tei<tla»flQr i»! «nti]r«ly Qon»i»t«at
with vi*« t«^»tiMNiy of tii« 4«f«?t6a«t a* t© tJi*- W«j' iKi wiaisn tM
ftuttmolii],* «w« 4riY«A f^rpiss ti«t« to tt(ii# s^i ue«(l ^n tJw 4ny ift
«l«»«tiatt# t)i9iJr v«r4i9t it proper and Wi<»r« i« ncttiiMg ia ttwi
r»ijdr4 «M9k ««ul« Jwttify »« is •v«rri(liii0 it« ^uai «« ti^
AS ie «l<a3ai*4 fe»y^ ife is«o«r«iljr 4ifn<mlt t» py*ira 4a » >«•«•
olttfiiv* nwk ofevmimlmXvi^ twgr. But, th« «triti*nor W6.6 3Gft«id«r»
•A •uffloittts^ ^ ire July ««<l e»»«i45«ri»g thwtr •tt|^«ri©r yoti*
ti^, I'mvifift %h« ^tii««»«ft 1»«for« t^AK •« ttsmt th«gr w«r« in
& )»«tt,«r i^eiti. 8 to Ju4is^ •f tlMir «r4»4l.)tiXit]r %lmn «« «r»
«* 49 iw% f««l ^a«tifi«4 in iioidiaf thiat ti&«ir 4«t«rtaiii*ti«B
*H
•a %h» mk\*im^ of a^mtv e^ ^ty i» «&«ii«S|r AgftlaMii %m Wight
©•cc- ■,<..-.•., J, 4ir*i iHsasof, J. aoM0Us.
Jil7-a647»
\
App«Xl6«,
AX'PSAL ¥)&jU
or caiOAQo.
« eorx»oratlon. \^ / d lu 1 .A* Q 5 4
AppslXant*
M£. Fil£3Ii}XIQ JQSSIOS a*<iYLOxi deilTered \im oplaioa i«£ the ouurt.
Vh» plaXatXti , Moatts fiielu^rdscB, ItresfclKt suit ag^-lnst tk*
A«£«iicLeizit , iBdia X«a Ooiiqp^cijr, £«r dfittiifoa fcdr p&ruom^l ixijorieti
SBSt&lMNI Iby r«ti8uii Qi \*9iag atraoic by aa tttttottobilo whioh it
was aiaaged was nagligontljr 4rlvaa b;^ an «^«&t of the Aaifi»clant.
On fioTaabar X;£,l»17, betweau &:30 and 9:00 o*oloak in lUia jstomiag,
the plaintlfjE, an dXd aoukiaara negro, who auld ita w&a Bl jat^ra al
aga, an aia^JLoyea al Uae City ai CMaugo, whlla woricisg at his
bualneaa of atraat olaaaiag on tha north aida of 6ted street
batwaaa Pr Inoatoa &nd tvaatworth ATanaaa, was atraojt on the right
htind lay a Ford truoJc, whieh belongad to the defendant and wa«
drlTen l»y une MeUuxien, its agent.
It la Ola load on bahulf of the defendant that the
STldmoe does not diaeleae &ny negligeaae on the pi>^rt of the
defendt^nt bat shews th&t the pii^lntiff was guilty of ooutrlbuiory
hagligenoe; i^lao that the daiiagas allowed were exeeaaiTe. We are
of the opinion that both oonteations are ontenable.
She aridenae of the driTar of the traais: ia aaoh thut. (iuite
obrioualy, we are not oatitled to oTorride the verdiot of the
ivxy» it is hia testiiaony thiut he mis going west on 6^rd street,
STidantly traveling in the ear traaJc, and that & street ear aaas
op behind hiJB and sonadad its gongj that ha then turned oat of
%3
ti» tr&9k,B to the right ^^nd wvat aa withaat stopping and in
doing 80 strook th« plaintiff who wus goiag west on th« street
fthe&d of him, on the right hand side ntAx the onrh, sweeping.
She only esceuse giTen lay the drirer is that i£ the plaintiff
had not put out, or pushed out, his arm in staking the motion
of sweeping, the autoraobiie would faaTe gone hy without touohing
his* Ckinsidering th&t the plaintiff, bs & street sweeper, hsd
a perleet right to he on the street, ti^nd that he was only bound
to exeroise reasonuhle oi^re in the perioraaia6« of his fnnotion
of street sweeping and tho-t the driver of the trusk s&w him,
STidently in time to h»Te stopped his uutomohile t\dthout in-
juring him, ua he was only going ahout lour or five miles an
hour, it would seem thut the tritO. judge wus fioatirely justified,
purtiouli^rly if he believed the testimony of the plaintiff,
himself, and his witness WilliamB, in finding for the plaintiff.
In U * Connor v. Union k* Go. ,7S H.Y.Stupp* 606, where a
street sweeper w&s struek, while worJcing between the rails,
by an approaohiag e&r, the oourt st>.id, "it baa been held th&t
persons who are eiE^ployed hy u munioipulity and working upon the
puhlio highway &^re not bound to exereise the st^ae degree of
ears while in the street thi»^t i^ould be required of ordinary
pedestrians '^"^ nevertheless auoh per eons are required to use
reasom^ble oare to avoid being run over." Also, in Smith v.
Bailey . 4A I.Y. Supp. 666, the oourt said, "Undoubtedly those
persons who are engaged in the streets in the publie serviee
oannot exercise the same diligeuee in getting out of the way of
passing vehieles as those persons ean v^o are simply crossing the
streets and avenues; and it oannot be expeeted that they should
bdoause if their time were ta^i^en up by loojcing out for ooming
vehioles it would be impossible for th«u to oarry on their vorlc.
W^ bti - i\^£t1^ 9&S i
>'9'0» to
-xeoi; a HI
,?»« S^9t%9 .
je.iii Tf-
-d-
Tli9y oannot, howoTor, li« racicloss. They i&r« looiuid to uae r«wk«0Ba1»I«
«ure In aeeiclng to t^Told the cUuagera by which th«y ^re Borroonded.'*
It is olain«dL on behe^lf ol Xbm Atfen&aut that th« driTer of
tho uutemoblle vvundod hia hoira «ind tht^t the plti-intlff should hare
gotten oat of the wtiy* fhc^t, heweTer, is disputed. Xhe witne««
Willit^ms testified th&t no signal of any jcind was giyen, and the
testimony of the plaintiff, himself, tO. though soiaewhat confusing
on thbt stthjeot, nevertheless, seeas to intio&te thbt the blow
which he reoelTed and the soitnd of the horn took place about
sittultaneously* But that whole subject was considered by the
trial Juclge and he passed upon it fuTortibly to the pli^intiff • She
plaintiff wt^B entitled to be on the street wjiwre he was und, &%
the tl#e in question, he wus doing his duty, mnA it is our opinion
Xhf^t from the eridenee the trit^l judge w£i,s fully justified in
concluding thut the driver of the trucJfc wis negligent und thi>t
the pluintiff was not guilty of contributory negligMice.
AS to the duBiages; She injury consisted of the crushing of
the dist&l joint of the little finger, on the right h&.nd, resulting
in a fr&cture of the bone* lor* Morris testified tbat he treated
the finger froa HoTSliber li^,l»17, until Jc.2tu^ry &,1916, in ^11.
about &6 tiJBea; that the medical eerrioes were wotth |b0.00 but
that he charged 4:6b ,00; that the whole of the right h^nd up to
the wrist was put in a splint in order to deaobilise the finger.
She plaintiff at the time of the injury wus earning iif&,^6 a day
and was woriLing eight i^ours a day, six days a weeic. Besides his
doctor's bill he was c^rged ^Si,OQ for «ja •x^nxy exbimination and
froB ^Ib.OO to ^^0.00 for medicine. She plaintiff w&s evidently
out of woric froa Heveaber U,1917, until about April 6, li»16, and
•apparently, owing to the injury to his hand. She trial judge
figured that the plaintiff had lost UX weeks work and that that
ii
-4-
loM, %Qg9tii»x witk %h» luediotil bad »«aieine •a3)«aB«8, would
aoouut to tobottt tf4t>0.00, aad h^rUi^ in aind th« p&ia b-oA.
aufieriiig, entered jud^ont for ^t>00,00. w« *tjpe of the
opinion th&t there wae no error oowtitted in fixing the
amount ul ^img9B ta^t |£00.00.
Finding no error in the reeord the judgaent Is aitiraea.
Afii'XBIIEJ).
O'Connor and 'Thomson J* J. oonoux*
.ci
14 • 24f9f
A
1
mmu. Slavonic OA'smttc wneM,
m MryomUan. and CtfrtUnOYAL AMB J
CCaORHCXAL XllUSf ASi> iiAVISeS MAM. J
• MrporaUoB, laOBAXL CXGBUCAR, /
Mid JCHS ILJthLAmmL, US CXerk of/
tlw Svp«ri9i^ Ooujrt of Oook :jcun.iV«
i)«fe<ndaAi«
i^4
rr©r,
m.mi^titt in Kigr|^ ^ I , A* U & ^
JfK* Jti:JII{I»! O^CCirifC^ ««llT«r«d thv opiaien ^f
thf> oourt*
t\m Bouih E»X«Toaio Cftthello Union, « f«2«igB fratcr-
oaI ••oittjr* nut}i0rij»«d to <lto lm«in»«ft in this &tAt«, fil^d
« ^ill to r««tmiii th« <i«f«ndftnt» Stoliort K. L. Br»oko, *■ ad*
ainifttmter i|o bonin n»n of the •otnto of Tronic Modooh, d«ot«n*
•d, frcoB proo««utlnf; t«o tnlt« in tlw sfunioipal ourt of Chi«i«;«a
ftnd prmying that oottplainnnt ba daaraad to h^ tho own«r of «ix»
taan ««rtifi«i*t«o of dopeait ttad ana draft. After iaouao wmrm
jainad tha cmlu«« «raa rcfarrad to ttaa llaatar who took tha ari*
danea and raportad* H^ raaoanandad ihat a daoraa !»• antarad
as prajrad for in tha bill* Tha daoraa waa aooordlncly antarad
to r«Ter»a which daf^ndant. Brooka* as adminiatrator, praaa*
otttao thi« writ of arror.
Tha raoard diroiaaos that oaMpiainnnt, soutk idJKf»ai«
Catholio Union, is inoarporaUd uno«r tho Xaaa af ttea &tata af
MiMaaaata and vaa authoriaad to do >>uoin«iBc in this uUttm on
MKl after June 1, 1915s that obi» 9f th» effiotrt i^rOTi^ed for
V i^« 1qr«l««» ««« kfwvii «• &ttpr«BW auardisa, an<i %)m% tit*
dco«ttS«4 Tmuik M*dfh 9imB tiia« prior to Hlo dOftUi w»s dtOjr
•loetod to that office and aotod a« oaoh up until tli« tlaui
•f hla doailii tJaat whan aniy m«»l>or of th« (hiloa died loaTlag
ninor holra for whott no jjiaardian «aa appointed , it waa tho
ouataai of tha Union to r«mit to tha St^romo Qttardian, Frank
iiadaali, irimtoTor funds wt» dua oue^ niaora, to bo held Igr
hin a« Buoh of floor until th«!^ eeuld bo lo^alljr turnod oTor
to tho ainor bonaflolariaa; that at dlvora tlmoo aixtaon
WMbara of tho Union diod loaviac odnor hoira for wltion no
lagal guardian h&d boan apj>oint«d» and in oaoh inetaaoo tha
aoMuat of tho inouranoo waa oont to iS/^odaah aa Suprano Ouardi*
ian; that upon roeoipt of tho moni^ by him* or vithin a dajr
or two th«»reaft«r« h« purcAiaoad at ou<sh diT«ira timoo tho six*
taa« ear tifioa too af dopeait in ooatroTorajr; Uiat boforo ha
diad, Ootabor 10, 1912, ^ >*ad In Mo poaaoRSiioa ooaa t4<^0.0C
balonglag to eortain oChay i&iaor benof i oiari eo vhioh raonoy ho
had rooontly roooiTOd front tha Union* and that ha roQueotad
that tho maniqr iMi iakan to tho bank and oxahangod for a draft
yayabla to tho Auairian eonaul. Vhio wao dona tho day Bf
hia d'ath but afior ho diod* A fov daya t>w>raaftor llede8h*«
vidoa auggoaied that thla draft ba oxolntngod for oao payabla
ta :£odaah*a aueooaaer in tho Union* vhioh waa dono. shortly
aftor Modoah*o doath tho proa^nt aetmaal tttr tho adodaiotra*
tar* who werm than roproaontin^ tho ootato* took tho &»attor
of th<^oo oortifioatoa and th<» draft up with tho offioiala of
tho Union aa to haw tho invontoiy in th« doeaaood*o ootato
aheuld be praparad ooaoomlng than. Thoroupoa oouaool pro*
yarod and filad an inventory montioniag tho oortifioatoa of
dapooit and tho draft aa property hold in truot by Modoah
•3«
«• S»9rmm auardiftii. T)D»r« van no disput* at t.h»i tin*
ttmx tto« praiNirt/ <U4 na% )»«loag to tl»« ««t«t«!i of %1m 4«»»
••a»*4« and it ««• ims'<^«4 that all of it b« t«ura«4 ever
to tho Ufiloa upon pajr<^nt by tho tlnion of fX60*00« vhioh
•l»IMir«ntljr waa t* g* %«««rd defragring tha axpttnaa* of a4-
■inistiratiott. A ArmtX tor this amount im« axe ou tad and
taadarad to oounaal for th« «8tata« who th^raup^i proaantad
a patition w th« Probata oourt aaklng laava to twiTi tMa
property «T«r to tha Union, and on ttaroli Srd, X9XS» an order
vaa aooordingly antarad. Aftar this it aaemo that eounaal
for tha adainiotrator dOBumdad $360.00 in liau of tha $1&0«00
which had la«an tandarad )tmt not aeoaptad* hafera the aifaainia*
tratar would turn ev^r tha eertifioataa and tha dmft« I'o
thia tha Onion agraad and forwarded a dumft for tha aoiotmt
danandad whloh waa tandarad tr oounaal ftr the adaiaiatratart
whioh after aoaa d««Xay wan rafuead, and at Utai tiaa it waa
etated that the aAainietrator would turn ftTor the oartifi*
oataa and the draft upon p«^jr»ent of ISOO.C^O, whioh the Union
•yparentljr rafuaed to da, Uay 22, 1914. th^^ Probata oourt
aatarad an order on the petition of the adaiai^trator author*
ising Ma to h«^iB two auita in the Uuniaipal Oourt «f Chi*
aag* acainat the two hanka w)m> iaouad the Qertifieataa and
the 4i»ft to •nSitr99 aalleotioa on thaa. Prior to the filing
•f tha ouita hoth hanka had refuaad to sake payaant an theea
•Uigationa to tha adainiatrator* Xt aXaa a^peara that aoae*
time during tha proae«rdiag in the i>ro1»ate oourt the Union
filed ita daia againat the eatate for the aracunt of ihe oar»
tifioatao and the draft, whioh dlaia waa aftarwarda dianisaad
for want of prooaeutien. Aftarwarda this hill wae filed ta
raa train tha proaaaiitiaa ^f the euita in tha Jtualaipal Court
•nd praying that the Union be daaraed to he tha awner of tha
•trtifiaataa and yte draft*
■.'i^^
•4.
A p«iiit«n f)»r tj^ rtmorml of torn aAralnietrtttor ma on
hffarl»it Jftiwaigr 89, 19X6, b«for« 3^^t0p» Horacr of ihc »roy>m%9
OoxirX raA inoldientalljr iii* qu««tien of the ownorohip of th«««
e«rtifleat«« *nil ftxmfi wm sono into. m% i»M«^ iimo JtAdjgio
a»iraor otaiX to ooanool for ih(! ateii^otvfttor ttoot it nao
l»orf*otly »|tpftroat tliot this property diet net boioBg to tlw
oototo but Volottgodi to tho Uaion. Of oouroo it io th« X«v tb*
if tlkoro i» A dift]>ut« b«tw««n th«> odadnietroter m»A m third
fMurtjf »o to v^ethor o«)rtAin ]»rop«rty holongod to tb« Potato
or to the third pmrt^ th« Frohoto Court h»o no jariodiotiow
to try ottfdi on iotuo, hut tho i^mrties eust be roXogotod to
tho proper fenm, $m4 it ie ofipMreiit that this ie the re»ooa
wijjr « opooifio order direeting the eidteiaiotrator to turn
%M» property oyer to the Union eno Xator oorreotod so ao
to ehev that Xeave vaa giTen tl^ adminiotrator to do oo.
It 9mmm to he th« adiaini«irator*8 position that
the non^e r^eeiYod froM the Union V l^mnk tfodooh in his
lifetijoo aa Snpreno Qnardian wore aingXed with hio omi fund*
and, therefore, that the property of the Union oonXd not ho
speoifiaaXX/ identified andi eonoo<3uentXy the Union wao not
entitled to a dooree in ito favor, An<l a fnrther canton*
tion ooewa to ho that eineo the oortifioatoo of depooit
here tho name of Trmvk ttodnoh, aupr^Jte Guardiwi, thi^r ho-
Xongod to hio ootato. Vhoae oententiono irer<^ not euetained
hy the Maotor nor are they auotained }a^ the orideneo, it io
OXoar to ue fron a oonoideration of all the eridenee that
theee funds heXencod to the Mnion and were heXd hy Vraidc
iiodosh as an offieer of ttet union and, therefore, the dooree
amarded in fMror of tho Union wm» px9p«r and the onXy on«
that eouXd ho entered. In faot, ne oXaia of any nerit soenn
to half b««n mdl« th»i th«jr b«lons»d to the ««titt« at luiy
tin*, «nd it $kp99AT* that dalivary of than to %hM union «•«
aot Huida for th« ro^^oon that th« Union would not pay tho
IQOO.QO daaaandod^
Th« adittlaiBtmtor appointed h;^ tho Prohato Court
waa John Kranjoo, Suhaofiuontly he diod and Elmar 0. Rathfon
vao appointed to »uoe«r«d him. Ij^ter on Hathfon died and on
Augiuot 14, 1916 « the prtioent ad^inietrator ^ ^ni« inon wis
appointed. He interranod in the inetant oaeo Cotoher 7, 1916,
The eaae vaa not referred until Vebruaiy 80, 1918, end the
firet eridenoe me taken hefora tb» Maater Mar eh 19, 1918.
The )ia«ter*a feen were taxed at |8X4,^C and deereed to he
paid hy the adoiaietrator and in default thc^reef tm exeou*
tiOA ieeued. COBq^laint is aonde that the ehuieellor 9TV<L
in allowing the aaeter |30C*0C for epeelel eerria^^e in the
eaee at the rate of 9&«C0 per hour for sixty boure. Trcsaa
an ejMainatiea »f th» entire r9mr4i we think the allewanee
wae warranted* It waa error, hewoTer* to award an execution
a^piinat the adninietrator ae eueh. The proper order la
that payiMnt W aiade in due oouree of adtainietration. But
eounoel for the anion etate that theae ooete ehould be taxed
agalaat Rohert X, L« Brooke indlTidually heeauee, ae he mf
gttoa, it ie apparent that thie euit haa heen HaJlioioueljr and
wrongfully proeeeated without any aaublanoe of merit, and
that in eueh oaee it ie proper to aeeeea the ooete a^ainet
the indiTidual, In ifarahall. Adeur . ▼. Ooleman . 187 111. fttM,
in paaaing on the ^eetion now under ooneideration the oourt
eaid, (p. 586) "The offiiplaint ie asade that the eoeta were
tasuid a^ainet appellant p(»reonally and net againet him ae
adninietrator. Thia aetion of thr lower oourt wae proper
•6»
1l««MiMi th« «ostft •t thi» ,>ro0C<^41ag hair* ]b««tt 9*«»«<S tqr ilM
ii«t«r in rw0l^ to th« oont^nUon that th« «•«%« abouM IM
t«x«d a«Aiiist Uio «iMiaictrfttfir s>trfi&nally bea:;tt»« the vuit
iMft 1»««n vroncfttlly pro9«Qui«d Mgrt» "flmi vuit t« r«9<rr«r
•a tli&sc o«riifi«tmtt«* «»• inst>ltut«4 )3yr t2k« »4ttlBietnLt;*r
aXttr first $«tUng cia vrd^r frou t)i« fT*lNii* :^urt« th«
UMimi «sKi tiM lMu«k iNiifct ft4faiiiltt«t} tlft9 r%h% »f tit* «teititiitv»*
t«x> %e «ttQt}««4l and rtt««T«r tte« Amount (tu« ujpen thft vtaiWMmi
•f olalB la the imit miv pendiajs in tlie Huoiial^aX «»urt, Tmil
Vgr Its Mil ••ilet to r«>»inin tli^ ft4]Bini»traLt«r trou p«rfex»>
i.BC lis 4utgrt •»«( lUMlar Mtdbi oir(n»istrijEke«& it vnui His duty
•ad a* nagliftcnoc ajr Mdioa «m >• o)iaxs«4 ie plaintiff ia
ari«r«* th» rafaranoa tJaara ssada to %hm ardar of th* Prab&ta
aaurt i« tha or<k«fr autliarisla« tha adaini atsratar ta liasia
tha aulta i» tte iJuniaiyal aourt aa ilia aartifiaataa wid tlia
draft. It i* *alaar ta ua ttet if all tha f«ota vara Inraueiht
bafara tha £'roh«ta O^ixrt tm mkiaan ard<vr aev^M haT« baaa «Btf"i^
•A far tha imrantaxgr axyi^Mal/ etatad that tha propartjir did
aat halaag ta tha aatata. Aad th« faat that na dafanaa aauld
h« aada to th« aaita ia tha Munieip^l oaurt ia m ana^ar far
that ia th« raaaen wh^ anaitjr aaaiaaad jariadiation in thla
aasa. wa thiak it alaar that tho aaat« iaaurrad ia thio oaaa
axaa»t tha fil^ag faa 9t |10«CM9 and 119,00 n^&icdi ««a pmi^
ta tha ahariff , wmT9 all hra^ht ahaut ly- pl&intiff ia wrr^t
whioh ahould hava haaa avoided %y turaias or«r tha yraparty
ta tha Uaion. In th«aa airaiaaat>aaoaa • uodar tha autharitgr
•f tha aiarahall aaaa, tha fei4«2G aaata iaovurrad hafara tha
Matter aheuld ha taxad a<aiaat Bahart IR, t, Brai^a iadiTidualljr,
m ««• mpw^imUii atetaltttrttWr Js, ^, ft lt «»n about • ymr «aA
0B« JbaXf iMfttr* tuay 9t this «x|i«ai»« im» iB«urr«<i «n4 taaA
moyX* tltt«, Xlmntf9r9t to iiiY#eti«At« th« ncrlte, (tf «M»ur»««
if )i« wftft •Imply ff«llowiii« th« »4Tio« «f Ms oi»uii»*l, U»t
is • oMtter to h9 mASumf4 bstveen tiMst, btti iv <mniMi V«
dens in this prs«««dln#,
TiM» dsorse 9t ths Ou|)<»rier Court of oook i^jottntgr is
afflmsii in all rtspsois oxosyt «« to tlM tAxinc of tlM
|614*8C, and as to susli It is roversod osid r«Miiido4 to tte
Superior CSsurt whitik diroctioas to tox th«r«« oosts •goiast
ilobort S.X., Brooks* indiTiduoiijr.
msfwaaaa» xh yAHY; oua
imwmai with oxRBC7z<arB«
72 - 253i7
?. 7. OUHHI^aHAH,
Appellant, /)
WALLACE S. CLABEL J. HILT
TRAIHSR and AHTHH^ H.
doing bu8in98S uiv|«r thet Aeu:s»
and style of A. K.^ Clark/&
Ooa^aQjr, \
APPEAL Vh(m
MUHICIFAL CCJIJRT
OF GHXCAOO.
«19
l.ft. ^S
MR, JUSTICE O'eOMOR deliTered th« opinion of
the oourt.
Jr>l&intiff brought suit against the d^fondanto
to recoTor #11 75* 00 wliioh h« olaiauid was das hiai undsr a
vrittsn coatraot for lalaor and aatsrials furnished the
defendants under the na»0 and style of A. R. Clark & Com-
pany, At the dose of plaintiff's oase there mis a direot-
sd Terdiet In fawr sf defendants to rsTerse which plaia*
tiff prose outss this appeal,
Plaintiff *8 olaia Is based on a balance due hia
for lathing and plastering certain flat huildings under
a written oontraot which he entered into with A. R. ClmrTt
k Ceaq^aay, The affidarit of merits set up that defendants
were not partners but that A* R, Clark is Coapany was a eor*
poration and consequently whatoTer elai^ic plaintiff had was
due and owing net from defendants hut from the corporation.
The oontraot reoites that it is hetwe«n A. H. Clark & Com-
pany, "parties of the first part, and P, F. Cunningham,
party of the seeoad part**, and is signed, "A. R. Clark &
CO, (Seal)"» and "P. F, Cunningham (Seal)*, The considera-
tion mentioned in the contract is #8676 en which $1500 was
i^ SAl
,mfii^^iti
paid XeaTing a balance of ^^1175.
Plaintiff testified that he had done lathing and
plastering for the defendants for about flft««n years; that
all of the oon tracts were signed by A., R, Clark & Ooovany
and that none of them were signed by the three individual
defendants. He further testified that after the work was
ooapletsd under the terms of the written eontraet he demanded
payment of the three defendants on different oooasions and
that they said they did not haye the money at the time with
which to pay him; that the defendants J« Milton Trainer and
Wallace dark told him on one occasion when he asked for
payment that they did not have the money then but that they
would giT* hira in pt>grment seme real estate which they Iiad on
thf^ South Side; that afterwards A. B. Clark took hira out and
they looked over this property, two houses, and that plain*
tiff told thsm he could not handle saiae but that he wanted
payment in cask; that he had n^rer heard that A. H. cn.ark
& Company w&c a oorporation until the defendsnts filed their
affioaTit in this case; that he had worked en a number of
buildings imder contracts which he had made with A. R. Clark
St. Company and that wherever such buildings were built on
property owned by Wallace Clark and J. Milton Trainer they
were always out looking over the property and seeing that
the work was properly done; that on ona or two eocasions
tfallaee dark gave him his personal ehe<dc in payment of
work done althovigh most of the tixae payments were made bgr
A. H. Clark & Company.
Ve think plaintiff made out a prima facie ease and
that the court erred in directing a verdict for the defends*
-3*
■at*. ISrmn it the defendante were not actually ]fHTtn*VB m»
between them««lTe», yet we think the evidmoe tended to ei^w
they ee did bualneee with plaintiff as to be liable to him as
partners. In gjeher v. Bowles* SO 111. 396, the aourt said,
"Partnerships eannot alwa^e be proTed by written artioles.
In faet, ia rtirj many oases writings do not exist * ^ * in
sueh oases, and in all eases, the rule is, if a person suffer
hie tuak9 to be used in a buainees, or otherwise hold himeelf
out as a partner, he is to be so considered, whaterer isay be
the agreement between him and the ether partners. » » » whether
they are partners as to others depends on their conduet. "
*A party permitting his name to be used, or hold*
ing himself out as a partner, will be equally responsible
with ether partners, altliough he may receive no profits, for
the ooBtraGt of one is the contract of all." See also Poole
▼. Fisher, 62 111. 181.
In the instant eaee we think the court should
hare required the defendants to go forward with their OTiuenoe.
The Judgment of th* Munioipal Court ef Chieage is
rereraed and the cause ramaitded.
BsvsBSEo ASJ3 Kmnsmo.
HAYLOa, P.J. and SHCMSCV, J. COICUIt.
:^i 8^1
•1 • 25389
4.
\
CdEPAJmr, ft ooxttoratlen,
^ , MUHICli»AL GCORT
OKICAOO HSBKXV Ilfti^ITimi. / J
a o«rporatien» / ) OF CHICAGO,
. 1
219I.A. 655
MR, ^QnO< O^QOKTSm d«liTered th» opinion •t
tti« couri.
]^ t}ii» app«fil plain Uff H9<tkm to r'^versA a Judg*
aent ef thft i^unieip&l Oourt &f ^iiaa^^o,
7h« faat* so far a« it is 0>at«ri«l to stats thsn,
atirs tiiat plaintiff, Clarice-MoKlroy l^blisMoe Oo«pany, a
<3« operation, dia sosie printing work for Julius Shap«m, awl
vh«n lis «»s ind<%1»ted to tn«n in ths eua of abvut $800, thsy
rtt^tt*st«4 that th« bill bs paid or Kcokft ssourity givsn b««
fore further work voul4 be done* The eupon Bhnpera, who «ao
oaq^loyod hy defendant, Ohioago Mebrow Institute, « corpora-
tion, assigned to the woodlacsn fruet and Savings Bank for
plaintiff $600 which wftR du« him fro» defendnnt. Jt>efendan%
was notified of this assignment ^na v?aa requested to pay
this amount to the bank for the plaintiff but disrogardod
this d«Band and shortly afterw&rds paiidi to i>hap«m #588«5C,
1^1 ch was the exaot amount It owed hia at the time of the
assignnent. Afterw-'^rds this t&uit was broi^ght.
in addition to the foregoing faots, the evidenoo
showed that a few months after th<e assigBment and after the
payment by defendant to Shapem of the $S88,60, plaintiff in
i''f^i/3'9t
anothsjr suit in th» iteiiioit»«l Murt r<?eoTer«4 m iudemvat
ag«la«t shap«ra for $X84l.g7, It breught gajmiehm«nt oa
tlni* jttdgpi«nt «na pervcd dcfendaunt here a« g«rnliih*«. th»
gamiahe* answered that it ov»d Slsapera |110 and on this
aamrar a j«d|^«nt «aa entered fer this amount and it vas paid.
As «e undfTsiand the record .ha trial Judge held that the
Judgment entered in thi^ gamlahmeat yreoe^dljigs vas res judie*
ata ef the matter in oontroversy in the inst«mt ease apparent-
ly en the theory that if the defendant, Ohieaga Hehrev Xasti-
tttta. eved Shapera the 1538.50 in addition to aii> ^110, it
should hare bee determined in the gamielmcnt prooei^dings*
and this is the argument made lagr oounsel for df^fendaat here*
this vas error. After the aaaigsuuint was made and no tie*
giTen to the defendimt. i t eould not then paj £lhapera in
▼iolation of the assignment and netio<^, but to dieoharga it*
self from this liability It vouJid be required to pay the
bank for plaintiff. Therefore, whan the Ohieage Hsbrev
Institute answered as garnishee it eould not there truthfully
•ay that it owed Shapera 1888. 50. It follows that the Judg-
ment entered In the gamiohment easa was not res Judioata.
Vhs defendant also argues that the evidence s^iowa
that the #588.50 was paid by it to dhapera after its repre-
soniiativo had oenferrod with the bank and with a representa-
tiTO of the plaintiff and was told that neither tiio bank
nor plaintiff had any dials against Shapera, £>nd, therefore,
faymeat by it io Shapera was Justified. th» trinl court
found against than on this question of foot and it is not oen*
tenAad that this finding is against the manifest weight of the
eTid«noe. This being true, of course, ww dannot disturb sudh
finding. Howerar, we haTe oensidered the erid^inoe and think
mil —
'» ■•■«bi
ftrt 1
th« trial eeurt ««« JusUfi«4 ia ih« finding k»A«,
Defendant further sontditdcd that the afi«ignn«nt
was lnTBli4 for tl&« rcaeon thait a p«rsoB eaxnet apXit up a
olaim he hat hy aselgning a purt of it. It is suffieieat
to say in anavar to this oont^ntloa that at th« tiao tha
aoaignneat vao ma4« all of the Indebtedness due fre«n defead*
aat to Shapora was aaaigaed, for it ie stipulated that at
thai time therr wae due fron defendant to Siatpera #68S«50«
Yhe faot that he afiervarda continued to work for defendant
and that it beoMuee furtlwr indebted to him aaa in no mgr
effeet the Taliditjr of tlit aaeigxiaMrat,
It fall ova that the pajnaaat af the $8adlSG %9
shapera vaa nat warranted and since thero «as no jury trial
and the anouat is t»i in dispute, it is net neeeaearjr to
revaad the oauaa* hut the judgnent of the Muaieipal Court
af Chioage i^ll h? rerersed and ju4ga«nt entered in this
court ia faTor of plaintiff and against defendant far tSas.SO*
XArLOH, 9,J« AMD THOtSOlI, J, C(Matm.
/Q^
us •
Apyelli
APFFAL mm
J. H. HA^IH8» \ / ) QOm: OOUITY,
219I.A. 655
XR, 3W5T10.1 ©'COiywOR deliTwr^d the opinion of
.Plaintiff brought suit ai^Ainst defendant to re*
ooT«r ((Umaiceft «lalMted to )WY« been Buf f<»r«d by hia ea ao»
oount of being otraeit \ty d«^fendant*8 autonobil*. Theri^ was
a T«r<iiet and JudgiMnt In his faTor for 1^825 • to r^ Terse
vhiah dofandsnt presaotttes this c^peal.
Th# r^oertt di80lose« that about one o'clock In
th« afteraooa of Soptnsbar 5, X916, plaintiff was wallcing
south on ^ne weet oicio of kiohlgan BoulOTard, Ohleage, «md
as ho was orosslag Jaakeen BoulOYard* whleh runs aast and
wsst, d«f«ndant*8 autosiobila which was bain^ drivan south in
Mlehigan Boularard turned waet into Jackson BouIOTard and
struok and injurad the plaintiff. It !» far thi>sa injuri<«s
that plaintiff sues,
Xridonoa aff^red on bahalf of plaintiff tendod to
show that th«r€> wars a graat itaany automobilas on Miohlgan
lauloTard at ih^- time in quastion and also a great nuaber
•f parsons walking on the wast sldawalk of that street a-
crocs Jaokson; that there was a polieesAn regulating traffic
-8*
m% ih« lnt«rt«etloii of ih« t«M» «tre«ts •t^ndiag umur th«
e«at«r of Mlehigan »t tbM north sid^ of Jttokitoas Uuit ho te4
sigaaXlod for the seuthhouBd trftffia on Mohigan to oiop,
vhich was demo; that the plaintiff and a »u»h«r oi peri^no
walking oeuth on the voot oidisfW&Xk Btepp«>d at jffaokBoa at
the offio«r*» aignaX; that aftor a short opa«* or timo th«
traffic vas reloAoed and plaintiff a tartod aero&e Jaokaoa
Boulorard* vhen defendant* » automohilo» wMch tme beins
driTon hy d«>fe!ncaAt*K wife, oame south in Mi^tigaa and arouAi
thf» oomar into Jaekson* otrut^ the plaintiff, threw hia to
the ground* ran OTor his feet, and injured hia. Before the
automohilo eouM be stopped it ran op on the north oidcwalk
of Jaokoon }i(oul«vard west of Miohigaa. the eildenoe further
tended to ohow that plaintiff was imlking aorose Jaokooa
Boulerard and juot hefore he stopped off the nidewelk into
the roadway of that etreett h^ looked to the oast but saw
no autonoMlec; ooiaing frcxn that diraotion; th&t as ha wao
about to the eeater of the roadwajr defendant* k autoMOt»il«
Rtraek hia. The eridenee also tended to ithow that defen4»
ant* 8 autoroobilo was hsing ArlToa south in south in Miehigaa
Boulevard and turned around th^ oojrner into Jaoksoa at the
rats of about ton or twelTS ailee per hour; that it oaaa
up to th<? north side of Jaeksoa Just about the tiao that the
effieer released the scuthbound taraffis on Michigan and,
therefore the auteiaobilo did not stop but oentinuftd around th«
oomer into Jadkson,
On behalf of defendant, he and His wife testified
that plaintiff was o(;aing froa the soith to th«« north across
Smaknon Boulerard; that their aatoaobile when it r^^ached
Jaekeon, stopped In aoeordanee witi^i the tiignal of Vhe officer;
-3.
thai aft«r i,hi^ officer rel««a«d Xhm iraffle li 6tartc4 wy
filowly and proe««4«4 around the oomttr at ih« rata of four
to oiz ttlltta par hour.
jmtfinAaOX eontande that th« evid^^nea thowo tteitt
the plaintiff wan guilty of oontri^utosy aegligenoe oinoo
tha da/ vaa el«ar and be did not look to the «a«t before
going into t)» roadway of Jatie&oa Boularard. ;^e think thia
eontantian i« not auetainad \^ the eTid<^nee» for the plain*
tiff teatifiad that ha d'jLd look to the oaat before oteppiii^i
into the street. The polioe officer only testified that
plaintiff did not look to the aaat for approaahing anteaoMlao
irh«n he sav hiia, vhieh vaa after plaintiff w»e alsout three
feet off the sidewalk into the etr^^t. ^a think thie question
wae properly one for the jury, iieidenreieh ▼. MSSSSSXL* ^^
111. 499.
Dtfendr^nt alee eontende that the court erred in
glTiag Inetruetion fe. 7 on behalf of plaintiff. Xhat In-
struetion told the Jury that the etatuta of thia State pre*
▼idea in aubetAnee that no person shall drire a aotor Yehide
v^on any publie highway at a greater rata of speed than it
raaaoaabla and proper havii^ regard to the traffio and uae of
the way, •r ee as tc enuanger th@ life or linb of any person;
that it further proTidea that if a motor vehiole in going
around n corner or eurra in a higi^aray when the operator*!
riaw is obstructed does so at a greater rate of speed than
aix ailaa p^r hour, sued* fact shall be priata fasie evidenoe
that the Tehiole is running at a greater rate of speed than
Is reasonable. and proper, hsTing regard to the traffic and
use of the way. The crgument ist that tnit iBHtruotion waa
aialeading in thai it was not sup > or ted by the evldenee; that
■>'■:■ . ■ i%i$99^
i«?$J' .
•4-
th« rridene« sho-««d that th« plaintiff waa walking south
ca the «««t eidewAllc of Xioblgsiii B«ul»Yftrd into JaoJcson
Beulward all the tinu» in plain view of th« louthbound
traffiOf that there was notidng at tht" aorn'^r or eurro
to obstruct the operator* a Tiew an«l« tlierefor«t ^^ !»•
struct! on was orronaous. With thie eonteatlon w« oannot
agrea. 1%« statute olearly applies wheraror a tnoter T«hidLe
Is baing drirea around k. corner and tli^e iri«»w ie obetructad.
In tha Instant oaaa there was a large offloe bull ding *t ths
northwast eoraar of Jaokson and Mlehlgan Boulevards^ Xher«»«
tore, defendant should not hare game around this eomer at
a greater rata of spaed than six alias per hour. If h« had
not done so. the oar would haTo been unuer control. li\irther»
it laust be preauBiad that plaintiff loiew of thie lav and,
therefore* wauid no I be required to use tha eaaa degree of
ear* that he would be required to use if the statute per*
mitted the rounding of a oorner at & greater rate of S9e«>d
tJten six miles per hour. We think the inet ruction was
applioable and thi%t th^rt; was no error in giTing it.
JMKfeadaRt next oontenda that the de«aaratioa fails
to state a ottuaa of aetioa and thst its aotion in arreat af
Judgaent should hare been sustained. In support of this
it is said that there is no allegation in the deelaration
that defendant owed any duty to plaintiff, and that tnls is
always a necessary elextent in a oaee sueti ae th«> one at bar.
It is undoubtedly the law that plaintiff oould net reooTor
in this oase if thf; d>'fenaant owed hia no duty, and if there
was no suoh allegation in the deelaration. the judgiaent oould
net be sustained. But upon an exaalnation of the deelaratiop
\M ,»*!'*«'«*
.5*
vc find tJsat vhll* ix. if, not. alleeed in •• many ^erds that
d«f«a<laiit 0WA ft duty to the plaintiff, y«t v« think th«
faeta «ll4»K«(i showed such to b« th« q«»«. Th« d«el«rRtioit«
in aul^atana*, ttllfig«d th^at the plaintiff, whXl« in th« axar-
oi»« of all du« oar« an<i oaution for his own oafoty, was
waUcing aoresB Jaekeon Boulevard, the dofendctnt, oero*
looaljr n«glig«ntljr« ^ma wrongfully ran his mitonoMlo around
th« aom«r at a greater rat* of opood than wao proTldod by
tho statu to, aacl that as a r«:8ult theroof plaintiff was in*
jured. 3« think this Buffioi«nt. other oounte sot up o ihar
noglicenoo whi oh It will net b<> n«^e«e8aiy to diseuso.
Tho juolgm«ont of the Suporlor Oourt of Cieok aovmty
is afflsai«d«
^' ijrFIiilSKD,
lAXLOH, P, J, At© THCMSCar, J, CCS CUB,
145 • 25399
Jm CAVAlWiUlO,
ApP«llAnt,
CITY oy Cflii:A(Jc,
AFr'^AL FROM
SOCK OCUKf Y.
219I.A, 655
HH, JU87XG;^< 0*CC^£r€>H <S<?liTered t>i« opinion of
the oourt,
Plaintiff brought suit s^alnst defendnnt to r«*
cover daaai^eo for i^ersonal injuries d aimed to im.vc i>e<>n
ouBtainod bjr him by reaaon of d(?f«n(i«nt, throagh ite agt^nt,
n«gllg«ntly lifting the Bri« Str««t bridge over th^^ north
branoh of th«> Chicago HiTer vhil« he was upon it. At Une
elosto of plaintiff*6 t!fvi<i(moe th^ra was (*, dlreoted Tordiot
in fteYor of defendant, to re>f^^.jc^^ wM oh {Plaintiff prosecutes)
this appaal.
7ho oeurt direoted tho verdiot a^piMuraiitljr on tha
theory that the OYldenoe offered on «?bhRlf of plaintiff
showed that Wie injuries suffered by plaintiff were brought
about in part, at least, by his own neglig^ncft • that plain-
tiff tMo s«ilty of contributory negligence.
Zha evidonoe t<;nd8 to ehov that betirf^en 7:30 and
8:0C o*olo<dc on the morning of BoTember 29, 1915, plaintiff
who vaa driving an lee ^agoa east on Brie street, a eliort
distanea naet of the bridge, stopped hit?, taaa beoauaa the
traffic ahead of hia vae blocked by another t-^am thnt was
unable to proceed 1^ rMtaoa of the alipperinesis of the
- 3b£
wis
*2*
bridge. It «n« & oold «ini»r .torning. Th«re wrr» h gr-^tit
many teams paanlng effr t>i«< bridgt from both dir«>otion«»
tlMMi g«ing «a«t wer« on the Bouth si<i« of the bridgo and
thooo going west were en th« north side of the bridge?.
flien plaintiff stepped hif team th«re was at least one other
i«s« and wagon betw«(«n hla and the bridge. Mm want forward
to assist %h^ driver of the i«sn that was stalled < n the
bridge. Re spoke ic t}K bridge tender and secured fron him
a shoTsl. He then %ent nearly andgot some oind^rn or aehest
took a ahsTelful out on the bridge and spread them under tlfts
Wttgeii snd horse or team that was stalled, and then helped
push <.he wmgoa forward to enable th«: team to prooeed. He
get some isore cinders ami was spreading them on the bridge,
the
facing east at/time » when he heard soaieene say, *L00£ (jutl"
W» felt the bridge a&oTing. It was of the single leaf jadlc*
knife t/pe and opened fren \>h» west end. When he saw the
bridge going V9 he ran toward the west end of it and when he
got there that end of it was ten or fifteen feet in the air.
In an ende^-vox %o save hiaself he juajred off and w&e severe*
ly injured.
The eridenee also tends to show that while plain*
tiff was in the aet ef spveading oind'^rs on the bridge a tug
esae along in the rlrer and blew its trhlstle for a nusber ef
Binutec for the bridge to open, and that signal bells were
also ringing to warn people tiiat the bridge was abo^t te
open. Whether this boat whistle and vhe bells rang before
plaintiff w«nt upon the bridge and continued thf;reafter te
be sounded, or whether the whistle blew and the bells rang
after he went upon the bridge is not dear. But in either
erent, we think it inaaterial so far as the question before
4Xvi
'«»
JtftAOJ,
.fowj
u» ifs (K>ne«rn«d, The •Tl<i^no# alao 8how«4 tJ^ai plaintiff
h&d a 0^ pulled down obftr hie ear» and tiaat csonaequently
h« ooald no I tear »« diBtlneil^ &« h« oth«rwis« laight.
It furtter appears froai tJm eridenoe that tli9 bri<lg«tend«r
»a« hlia on the brid^a, and th«re le further ffYid«>no« that the
brld^etanetar vamed «T«r;^hody that the hridir« waw about to
open.
In these eirouaetaac^s v« tMak pXaintiff ma«ie Out
a grljaa factie oase sxid it should have been 8ula«itte<i to th«
«1ary. The bridge tender Knew the plaintiff was ^n the bridge
spr< adlng aehes on th^ icy pmr^nent of the bridgo with hit
faoe turned to the oaat and with a cap pulled A9fm OTor his
eare. We think it clear that all reasonable minde night
not reaeh th(» oonoluoion that plaintif w«e guilty of negli«
genoe in failings to got off the bridge before It v!>^e raised
and thftt the eourt errod in diroetiag the verdict. Lib by»
M^eill A Ubby t. goefc . 282 111. 806.
The Juti0Rent of th«» ^^uperior Oourt of Cook County
is reTeroed and the oauoe re2Hando4«
TA¥LtR, 1?,J. ivBD XEOM.Q(m, J. OC^COR,
■ijt\k!t^ i^i>y T.<l S'f-
154 • S54^
PHXLZF HSC1^» by DaTld B. Sehdlts, }
his dul/ akthoris*d agent ii^thiB }
b«Jtuilf, \ / )
App/llee. ) APFRAL ?RCiI
AAMinBL ynuD,
MinriCU*AL COURT
OF CHICAOO.
Appt^Xlant, j
219 I.A. 655
KR. JUSTICE 0*GGmOR delivered the opinion of
the court.
This vfts an aetien of foreilile detainer for the
poeeescion of a hallway in a building known ae 208 Bouth
State Street, Chioago. After a Jury had been eiapaneled and
sworn, the attorney for the plaintiff and the attorney for
the defendant eaoh made an opening statement of the oaee to
the jury as to what the evldenoe would show. At the olose
of the opening statement for defendant oounsel for plaintiff
moTOd the court to instruct the jury to r^tturn a verdiot
for the plaintiff, apparently on the ground that the state*
ment did net show any legal defense. The oourt granted the
motion and iastruoted the jury, and a Terdiot was according*
ly returned. The oourt said, "Gentlemen of the Jury, on
the statement of counsel for defendant it appears that there
is no defeaso to the action, and you will sign a Tordiet
for the plaintiff," It is quite apparent that the trial
judge's attention was not called to the case of fietsch ▼•
gletsch . S4S 111. 454. That ease holds that a rerdiot can
not he directed on the opening statements of counsel.
The jttdgnent of the Mimicipal Court of Chicago is
rerersed and the cause resianded.
RimeRSSS AND RBMAIEaBS.
XA)CLOR,P.J. and THCU8C9, J. COSCUR.
!.&'i.n^ )!■ : .,. Sii^
?^lt
•Tim
.•1
.Hi
62 • 263PS
A. L. CLA^ & CCliPANY, IHC. ,
a oor^foratlon,
\ Flaintiff /n ISrror,
T.
CHARL^ LBVY ClSWFAllY,
a eorpera^lon*
I>t find ant in Brror.
XRHOH 10
MUNlCii?AL COURT
OF OHIOAOO.
219I.A. 656
id. jySTXC!'! 'i^&tSQM dellTer«<i the opinion
•f the court.
The plaintif > , a* L. Clark &. Ccapany, b«gan this
a«tioB of th« fourth olass in the Municipal Oourt ef Chioagt
•n 7abruary SO, 19X9. SuakBons wat? s«rT«(l, r«!tumabl<? arch
10, and OB that date the defendant filed its appearanoa and
sem&rad an order extending the tine for filing its affidarit
of merits 10 days. On March 21, judgment 1»y default was
entered in faTor of the plaintiff for the amount of its
claim, 1498.75.
Daring the forenoon of that day the defendant filed
its affidarit of merits, without obtaining any order ef oourt,
penal t ting it to do so, This was tm day after the extension
of timo for filing the affidavit ef merits IwA expired. On
April 29 1 i^ieh was 38 days after th^ judgment in faror of
the plaintiff had heen entered, th€> defendant filed its iae<*
tion to Taemte and set aside the judgtaent and two days later
the oourt entered an order proriding that "said judgment he
opened, that leaTO bo and h'^reby ie ^iren to the defendant
to appear and make defense hf!rein, and that a trial of this
ixv^?..
•>2«
oase Ite had. notvithstanciing «ald judgment, that said Judg-
ment etand aa security and that exeaution herein 1»e atayed
until the further order of this eevirt.^ The defendant prayed
an appeal from that order, vhiedt the court r<»fuBed to grant
and thereupon* thie writ of error vae sued out of this eourt,
and thereby the plaintiff seeks to roYerse tha order referred
to.
Clearly the trial (tovirt erred in disturMng this
judgment. Section SI of the Muni oipal Court Aot, (J,ft A« Far,
3333} provides that if no motion is made to Taeate, set aside
or modify a judgment of that court within 80 days after it is
entered, sueh judgment "shall not be vacated, set aside or
modified excepting om appeal* or writ of error, or liy a bill
in equity, or by a petition to eaid iiuni oipal Court s«ttiR£
forth grounds for vaeating* setting aside or modifying the
same which would be sufficient to cause the same to be vacated,
set aside or asdified by bill in e<iuity: Provided, however,
that all errors in fact in the proceedings in sueh ease, which
might have been corrected at eoMion ls» by a writ of error
eoram Qobis . may be corrected by motion, or the judi^Mint may
be set aside in the manner provided by3a« for similar cases in
tlw circuit court." Xhe petition filed in the oaee at bar did
not saelc to correct an error in fact bat sought the vacating
of the judgment by reason of the negligence of counsel. This
is shown by the petition itself, whi eh atatf^e that when the d*-
fen<iant was given an extension of ten dsys, from March 10, for
the filing of its affidavit of merits, counsel for the defend»
ant inadvertently noted the last day for the filing of the
affidavit of merits, in hie lnwyer*s diary, under the date of
March 21 instead of March 20, and neither the defendant nor
-.Ai^SXiu
•3.
ita counsel leamed of the entering of the judgment until
a doput/ from the Htmicipal Court appeared at the dof«nd«
ant*s plaoe of business , in oonneetion with proceeding*
following the Judgment and more than thirty daya after the
Judgment was entered. It will be seen that defendant's peti*
tion to he sueeeasful omet have set forth grounds for Ta«aW
ing the Judgment, '*vhi cih would he suffioient to cause th«
•«B« to be Yaoated, set aside or modified by bill in •<}uity,"
It, howeTer* set forth no ouch grounds for it was based •»•
tirely upon negligenoe. As this court bas recently had eeoss«
ion to s«jr, the law is well settled that a judipteat in the
Municipal Court will net be set ««ide after the tine fixed
"by th«> statute for so doing, unless, it is made to appear, not
only that the petitioning defendant had a good and meritorious
defense but al »o that the judgment wsa in no Maxmtr eausc^d
by any laek of diligence on his part. Aacrit^jan Surety Coapany
of N.y. T, Bliec . 214 ill, App. 4©3. Xherefoa:^, eren If we did
assume that the defendant in the ease at bar h&d a meritorious
defense to the aotioa, as oontonded, neTortheless the Judg»
ment haring been entered by reason ef the defendant's nogligenoa
in failing to file its affidaTlt of meritt^ within the time allow-
ed, the Judgment should not have been disturbed. It is oonteaAetf
that the negligence of eeixns«l for the defendant should net ba
imputed to the client, Sueh a eontentioa is without merit.
It is urged by the defendant that the order in ques«*
tion was not a final order, That order dirooted that the Judg«*
ment stand as seoxirity hut that execution be stayed and the
Jndgmont b« opened end leaTe be given the defendant to appear
»nd defend, notwithstanding the Judgment. Both the parties.
>U &iiV
.4.
in their lBri«fs filed in thie oourt, tr«Rt the order as one
Tacatine th« Judgment and properly so, for that ie what it
vae in effect, Ae pointed out in City of Park lUtee t.
Murphy ■ 256 111. 365, '*'JFhere a default ie set aside and
a uoney Judgment is Taoated, the usual and proper praotioe
ie to allow the Judgsaent reeerered to stand as a security
for the payment of any siaount that laay ultimately he re*
ceyered en a retrial of the ease, ana any liens that have been
aoquired under the Judgment are retained until the fimil de»
termination of the merite of the oontrorersy. ** In tJtiat cass
a motion ms made to set aside a default and vacate a Jud^
ment, nearly a ye&r after the Judgmsnt was entered, 'Xhe
court held thet thi^>re was no final jttdgm.ent inTolTod and
that the order thf^re in question was not appealable and oh«
serred thet the motion was not an independent original action
*l»ttt was simply a step taken in the original proceeding, whioh
Is autnerissd by seetion 39 of tne Practice Act of 1907. **
In the latexu aa^e of ^,r& n er ▼. Illinoi.s Cc^aaer 9I fd ^ ^f°^*-g r
Assgoiiitlon, S60 111, 516, th re vrac liJcmrlso involred an
appeal from an order va eating a default ani^ Judgiaent on motltm
mad^ after the Judgi^-^nt term had expired. The <»urt held that
the motion appealiitd from was 0|ke substituted for the \7rit
of error cftram nohia (under see. 39) intended to allege errors
in fact smi that unqueetionahly the action of the court in
allowing the motion and raoating the Ju<3ginent was hased on a
finding that th^re were such errors, ami th^t, such being the
case, the law allowed an ap3«>Rl from the ordir as in any other
case of final Judgiannt;, oitina '{it ghoiX l v. .-ang, lfS7 Zll, 452
*"*^ ^rai tski ▼, i^r>crica n J'i-nBBffa [tSi' * ^^^ ^-^•'•» ^.^1. In the
graner (Mtse the court saii that if a i^oia-t nete 3Pi<ie or v»»
■if^:^'-
oatea » judgment otherwlee them under tlte motion suli«titut«<l
for the writ ( coram nojbie) the orcl«r ie inter Xevutory and tho
yartios auot await a final Judgment, from whioh an appaaX or
writ of error wiX^ li«, citing Walker v. CliTer . 63 111. 199
and City of Park Ridg*^ v » ;turphy * 258 111. 365, I'he oouxt
thon ©\>»er?«» that in the v/ alker oaoo , "the judgment (raeated)
was Toid for want of J«risdiotion apparent on the faoa of tho
rooord aa a mattor of law, and the motion to set it aoido was
for error of law and not for error of fact," iho court thon
•ajro« "So, alBO, in Oi ty o f .gark Ri d^e ^ v, Mttrglor . auyra , a
roaooii for vaoating the Judgmont was tnmt of proper eorriot
•f notioo en IJurphy or hie agents, vMeh shewod a want of
jurisdiction* " The writer of the opinion in the City of ParJc
Ridgo cast * dlosented from the daoieion of the majority of tho
eourt in the Cramer oaaa . In the oaso of Qallay ▼» Mathia .
195 111. App. 170« a judguent of the li<'4tni oipal Court, was
Taeatsd aftor the oxjiiration of 30 days from its date on a
motion or pstitlon in the nature of a bill in equity. In
that oase this oourt said, "Our oourts haTS hold suoh peti*
tion to he in the nature of a separate suit, and that in sueh
a preoeedittg an order setting aside a judgment is reTlevahle
liy appeal er writ of error," citing the Cramer ease , supra , and
Barnes t, C.C. Ry. Co. 18S 111, App. 148, The latter case
cited the Cramer case and followed it, holding that an order
Ta eating a judgment pursuant to a motion made und<?r the pre«*
visions of section 89 of the Practice Aet, was a final and
appealable order. Again in the case of Boyle t, gallows . 207
111. App. 5, this oourt treated an oraer Ta eating a judgment
ef the siunicipal Court, more than 30 daye after the judgment
was entered, as an appealable order. The oourt there held
that the petition filed, failed to disolose suoh grounds
t&J.
■'ft*
»v
Ufa
I
• 6«
for tint vaORtlon of the judgment as would he sufficient t«
mintaia & 1)111 in equity unUer the uaae olrcumstanoes.
We therefore hold that under the law of thie fitato,
a« laid down in the alaoYO deol&loRB, the ord^r sought to be
roweroed hy this writ of error was a final order and sutojeet
to royiew in this court T^ writ of error and we further hold,
for the roasono heretofore referred to, that the Muniolpal
coui't erred in allowing the motion end entering the order open-
ing up the judgment, and therefore that order its revereed.
RBVKilSSB.
TAYLOH, P.J. ANiJ 0»GCar^'Of.t, J, COICUR,
• do
94 • 8M19
jam 1. muxymB*
MZX^Ift J. YOTAVA,
'APPEAL imcm,
21§T.r-656
MH. JUsnCi: tmmMm il«XiTer«d ili« oi^inion of iim
a«urt.
Tb* plaintiff brought XhiB aetlon ea «t ehe<dc glT«i
him V the defendant, in th« sun Of f&00« which hf^ti not b«oii
paid. Tho trial oourt raade a flndlai; for th« dofonaant an^
ontorod Jttdgnont aoeordingXy, to rororoo vhioh the plaintiff
Itao porfeotod this apponl.
l)r hin affidaTlt of morite the ctefenclAnt oot 19
vant of considermiion and failure of con«id<^ ration* 71it
plaintiff contende that while loth of theeo defoaoo* amy ho
iBterpoood in the aamo oaeo , they muot ho ooparately plMtdod,
and ho contenao that the oourt orred in oTorruIlag hie aotioa
to oiriko the azaondod affidavit of nerlto fro» the flloo ho>
oauoo it iontainod th«eo two ineoaoiotont dofoaoeo. fhio
point io not toaahlo, a« it ai«;ht h« If this aotion were
not la tho ilunioipal Court and the defoaooo ref tarred to had
hoen inoorporatod in the eajoe plea, Suoh defeneeo ao theee
May he inooruoratod, ao thi;oo are, in ooparato paraerapho
of an aflidaTit of merite, filed in a fourth olaae aotioa ia
tho Muaioipal Qourt,
,iru<>»
.««
■Mi
-2«
TiM def«ndant oonleads that this oa«« pr«»«ai»
« premium between tmt persona with reference to forbear*
anee between two ethers and tlmt th'^refore there was n*
consideration for ih« glTlng of th« oheeic.
The plaintiff introdueed the obecflc and thea
rested, Th* defendant testified that tie van an off leer
ef the Hilmer Oil Compsuiar vhidh had glTon the drent Itorthem
Refininc Ckiapany seTeml preaisaorjr a* tea, acgresating
M«SOO in amount, tlm plniRtiff mui president ef the latter
eei^aniy and owned 9Z% ef its etook. There oeera to have Vena
three no tee « the second falling due three days after the
first and the third, threr days later. On the day the first
nets fell due, the defend$!nt saw the plaintiff and told hia
the Hihaer Cil Ooapany was unablt? te pay it. ¥he Miehtgaa
ATonue ^Cmst Conpany held the notes when they fell due. tlam
defendant told the plaintiff he had requested the Bank to ao»
•opt new notes in payment ef the old ones and tlie Bank had
•aid it would do so if that was satisfactory to the Great
Northern Eefining Cea^any»* that Uie Bank would disoount
the new no tor if the (ireat Nortbom defining Company would
aaeapt them from the liibner Cil Company. Be further testi*
fied that the plaintiff refused to aeeept new notes but said
he would oonfeae Judgment that day on the note then due; that
h$ (the defendant) told the plaintiff that meant ruin to the
ili bner Oil Oonyaay and "that th(» only way out of it was to
kaTo the notes renewed;* that they (the Hibaer Oil Coaynny)
were willing to glTo them (the Oreat Northern Refining Cooqpaay)
the dioeount they had of i>red the Bank; that the plaintiff
first said that the notes oould not be extended for any oon*
sideration smaller than a thousand dollars but after somo
d-i'.
,Sli^JfB9%
iJS i«c-9d
«rfjr
'>fi
■'Ymi
.ma .ft^i^irx.'t'.ki
conTerMkti9B "X r««o«lTed mn ultimsitun from «at« ^hatford un-
less I made that #&00, ihs first note voul4 go to ocafessien
of judgment, and th9 sthsrs would follow Xt wot peid": that
ths dsfsndant th«» said, *'Uy n&m^vaiy would no^ allow ny pay-
ing thla tmish out and the only way it can be dono. If I givo
you aty personal oh«oic for it,* 'fhis was agrssable to thm
plaintiff and the defeiidant asked the plaintiff if be waatsd
the oheflic drawn to his order or that of the oonpany and tlis
plaintiff said it made no diff^^renoe, that h@ ownetii 92;:^ of
the stOflAc, that the defendant better ractke it out to plain-
tiff *s order and that was done.
7he areat lorthem Refining Oosi|iftqy did forbear
Gonf easing judgment on the notes that were due, and new judg-
ment notes were giren in li«tt of them at the time the defeai*
ant gaTe the plaintiff the c^edK here Rued upon. Soae six
w«elcs or two w»nths later judgment was oonfessed on the new
notes. The defendant contends thet there was no oeneidertion
given liy the plaintiff to the defendant for the ehede, inas-
muoh as the Groat northern Refining Cosq^any noTsr proraissd
to forbaar oonfessiag judgment on the notes at the time su«fe
ferhMiranoe was requested by the defendant when he said his
SM^pany would be ruined if judg^sent was then taken and that
the mere foot that the 6r««tt Hortham Refining Conq^any did
forbear to oonfess judgnsnt, unless it was preceded hy a
proaise fro?i them as a oonsideration for th« oheok, is not
sufficient.
¥his eentention is not sound. An agrs»tent to for-
baar is a good oonsi deration. Morgan v. Pi^rk WationsA Bank .
*4 111. App, 6fl3; Bel tine C»M«i osl & Manufacturing Co. v.
iJfA«*S*VfiOV
j&uIfT. IS2 111. App. 303. 1% ttftn mmk* no 41ff«iene« tluit the
BOtee whi^ ir- r« Uu«« ir<»re th« property of Ute K«flaiag Ceapwny
and that the proalae to forbear vMia made, net Vy the ReflalBS
Con^iRny, biit by itft president and that the eheok wae dravn to
the or4er of the latter. It is «tlear that the plaintiff po«»>
eeeed the requlaite author! t^^ to make the prvadne to forbear*
OB behalf of his ooapamy, and it is net contended that e«i<di
promise vas not fulfilled. The defendant ehews by his own
testlisony that, it meant a great deal to his company, th«» debtor,
and to hla aa one of its offlO'^rs, if eonfeteion on its JjttdjE*
sent notes eould be pri»Tented 2*.t the time thc>y f^ll due. The
plaintiff a^X'eed to forbear taking the notion that vas threat*
ened in oonsideration of #500 s^ndaocordlnely the ohec^ in ques«
tion •»«.» giTOB and the threatened action wae yrcvf^ted. There
was good coneidv'^ration for the Qhe<i^.
The Judgnaent of thi& Munieipal Jourt in rereraed and
indigent it entered her*' for $60C with interest at 6% frea
Septeaber 5, 1918, the due date of the instrument sued upon
(111, statutes ohap. 74 eeo. 2.) or a total anount o; ^^KS'^.l^,
TAn.(B, y,J« ASi> 0*00)fNOR^ J. C JfCUE.
84 . 25338
jriOOIXK jr. UOlai, and HABBY )
s, ixmm, )
\ )
Plal1|Uff« in Error, )
i if BRHOR W
▼, ^f /) MtmXOlPAL 30liHT
Of CHICAGO,
I«r.„.u„t in S^r. 52 1 9 I .A. 6 5 6
MR, JUSTICf' THCMBOH delivered the opinicn of th«
oouri.
flM plaintiffs, (Owners of a buB^aXov, 1»rought this
a«tiea aeainst ihe ietnnd&nt, their tenant, meaklng to r«*
eoT«r 1126.97, the value of eertain house fumishlnga thejir
olaiaod she had unlawfully appropriated and certain lumber
and fire weed thr^ elaimed she had improperly ueed* 'Xhe
iaeuee were eulnsitted to a iWFy and they found for the plain*
tiff and aoeeseed hie damages at the nvm of one dollar. Plain*
tiffs awTed for a new trial, claiming that the evidr^nce showed
that they were entitled to substantial damages. Xhe motion
was OTorruled and Judgment entered on the verdict. To reveres
the Jnidgmeat, the plaintiffs have cued out this writ of orror.
Ths only question involved h*^re ie whether the evi-
denee supports the verdiot and judgment. The bill of excep-
tions contained in the record, eoneiets of a statement of
faots which is not certified as a statement of all the evi-
denee submitted in the trial oourt. In that state of the
reoord tiiis oourt ie bound to assume that suffieient evidence
was submitted to support the verdict ir>nd warrant the trial
oourt in overruling the motion for a new trial and entering
afeeaa * S'JP-
i£o
■iAi
-%.««•
Jtt4K»«nt on the TerAlot. Hor«oT(»r, we haT« examined the
stctteaent of faots as contained in the record, and in our
opinion it supports the verdict.
The Judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago
is affinaed.
AFFIBICRD.
TArLOR. P.J. ASH O'CeWNOR, J, GOHCUR,
..„!S»t
a i ft Ic: o
#9 •
i^^.lii SQOyUIX.
▼•
mmiBtrnmsR afAie«i,Vtt«« mm
SHI 0400 urm tH*Mm^ Qim»
^cts oomtif.
I.A. 656
mi. jusYJia ' twrnrnm d«iiv«r*4 th* Q»i»ion «f
%h» <9eurt«
from « il*«r«« tfimiftsiiaf hi» Vill f«r en fta«>«mi>^nt» f^r
on«{>lAl»ftni« AHA th« 4«f«a4imi», ahri«t«^h»r mm»v uM
MMlvw x«Aii»h« •aii#jr»4 into « p«rlM*r«]iif «;Cr«<^««it. la
fth»r« of ^n« n*«»«»»yy f«iiA»» »adi «l]»ir« Jtn ih« profit* iJi
ii««ir4fti»«« trith th«: •auHtnt «f fuadft »• •e«tritaut««. Tim
«eBtjr»«i pr«fvi««d UMt ii wk» te r«»«iti In fall for9« for
ihfi p«ri«4i of OHO yMur *«al«»fi 9\>h»rmitMi amtaRjJLjr «tleo«lT«4k *
Tlio liUl fwrtlior ftll»««^ thKi t&f««r 4li« oxoeiiUoii of %hlw eon*
tx«o«» iiio yartttorohiy mmI« a 40«tr»«it wi%ls tte Clt^y of tmioofl*
for ilM %r«iioj»ert«U9ii of lio «ttvlMs« fnm oarteia leadiac;
poittto io n r«4ttoUt>f» plt^nt aii<l ]iro«HMl«4 Is I i« yorfonuuioo
in •%tt»l .sh«T*a* «iiU UiAt th« j^a^jrim^fhkp clIm «at«r#4 into •
MiiW»ot vith iiit |U^raI Trftnsit <;«M|»«agr for th« pur«h*«« 9(
•My* viili ttusdtid •«•«!( «»eaiaile% %is #eil«OiO, in KhAjr** of
tlMi Umqt ««r« i« Hold tto«« f»r Um l>4m*flt ef &i»^ |^ftrtn»r«hifi
Um) <$ftrp«rttti&ii «»• n^inftjr ttc«d to ijrAnMi«t %h« tniKlit*** of ihe
Hmmb** ia iKiliaXf af iii9 ]parlii«)rslily*
1% aaa aU«««A furi%i«r iltat mmitf al&i»«d ta !)• iha
•ala a«««r af ih« garlwiffa %ti«ia«»» 9f Ui» pturtA^ruhip nR4 aaa
aypvayrlaUac aU Um iNraf&tB af ih« Uuaiaaaft %e hiasalf aad
tlsat» «ItliDti«h r«^a«tt%a4 te 49 »a» 1m» r*faB«<i t« tit;miin% ta
aaai^aia»at far angr af aaid praCliti that a««b af tha part*
aara a«r« aaUUa4 ta a third af ttia profits ef the tmainaaai
ilaai «lv« *aa«yarta«rBhip Wsineaa* had a«T»r 1»aaa diavolTad
asM aa «atUaRiaat ^f i% ha< arar Iknto aadas that, at tlit %mjf
"M J
J't?^*^,
luMl «T«]r }tmen a«u»$ t,hRi it)* ]»«irta«r*hi|^ h^A n«v«r 4a:fiir<»4
•41 amupftfcag «o«^l4%ituMit. »ti^ «%wir«i of tM<?' p«rt»»3r»liip buei*
««•• »• It night h* mhtftm hm w»e &Qtiti«4 i9»
til* fivia«iie« 4i««l«««a %hi^ ]»«rtai«r»liip Mmirttttt,
tlm Uttwi vf «hi«li w«r9 «• ••% forth is ih« liill Of oPOtipliUJlt*
Mid ttine ft eofitniot t»«tir*«ii tlm iMirtfittrahl; ii«4 t.h« llojr«JL Xiw»*
•it «3««v«Bgr wb«r«1isr ih« ]|^»r%««r»(ii|i ftnira€<>Nt to iMqr •srtAiii
iMMit* wK lwurv*» t9t wNl«h iMi^«}}te v«r« t9 %»• •»•• irxtftti^*
inc into 1^« fwup 1919 « ^lAiieh «Mr hityimA th« jr««ir for whiok
titft ^mrtaiorsliiy ••• •s^g;««ii»«Nt«
ffew •Ti««ii«i« farthttr di«aleft«^d « <»»Atjrftot l»«tt»««B
tlm fAirta«y«m]^ an4 th« ^i%^ %t Oklostfi AKt«tt £N»0««b«r 1,
!•!•• f«r Ui« ••rxyittfi ftf is«slMkg« frwi jMnuuey 1» ISlt to
lNi««»1>«r 31a 1916* Mid ttl»« « aeiitr««t l»«t«»t« anMir*
*m»mk]0um tMA coIa •uxTiTiiig i>arta«r<* mt %h» |Mirta«r«liii]i» «s4
tli«) aity Af c:m<»#», f*r t^« enrtylng sf «ftrlHis« frost JftiWAiy
1* 1917 tft £»«9«ttV«r 91* 191T« tltfX^ «etttr«i9t va^t s^Kle pur«t»-
•»t it » l»i< oriKiinaij •itteitt«d liar t>>* ^•'tiifffvlidp* vhioli
%h» •ofttj^ot m9% fortb. lm<i mmnkfgn*^ aU tiM rieHi* of ti»»
|Mirt»*rs l» JKttMir •• svunriving pmrUtrnw, I'liore ««• « furtlM'r
•ontrftot b«tw»«tt ^iiusMr eM4 th« ^UIjr •f C3ii«M«» f«r th« «»irt!]r*»
I
tiM Citjr «ai« •!•« in iNsOting; its j^a^rm^n^ «ma i,im%, h« la4liTi4*
tmlly «iiie*ft«di la Airiigrlac tto^ |^«rlMig« frsa JwuMiyy 1, 1917
io aoa* iiaMi ia Jl4^ %f %im\ yimstt «i vMnte ti»e his i»4lTid«
uiUL s€>nt.ni9t wi&h Ui^ 01 tt^ f»r U» oangrlac of ih« ^rftrlme*
for ilMtt y«*r, «!* eai«reii intttt &n4 U»t it «».a 4ft i«4 IwalE
to Jfamsaty !• 3.91T*
Hm» «vi4 ae« farther di&sloocd • sontxAot boivMW
onqM-oiimiit itolwMtim on^ tJeK" d«f«ii ft«i ieHeAiuil^ mi pftjrti«»« of
tl»e fir«t iMuri witl @RyaM»r, »• 9Artgr of t^ s«6eB4S iHuri, t>a<t«r
4a%« of ireVr%Mur3r 23« 1917, whli^ r^^^tod Vm f«»Ati«B ef
tlu» ^artaorsM^ Ra4 pr0Yi4«4 timt, *it toolayg ihp 4««lr«» imr*
INis* aB«l lat«at. fteverelljF ismS Jolntlir, id 4ic«oiv« •mX4, och>
«l»M»lT«4.* ¥M* 09atr»et furih«r reelti^ tlmi flotaMiHi «»«
MeAsfth, "in eon«i4«rfttica of deUv«nr to e«eri. of iS^COQ
|Mil4 1^ ei^iitol «t»di of tho Chi ««• Sivor ^rmmmSmr OeapwMqr*
o oorpcx»Uoa ae* Wiac oi^poniooNA ai^«ir t^ I«fcvo of Illlttoio*
* • * 40 ^»jr8«ia« ^11, Hm& 4«liYor onto HoMor oil ri^bt, utlc
«ad iBt«r««t «o no* iiavo or aojf h«T« la Bind to ih« oopftrtaoroMy
kaom aftu doaerilHNi am tlao ^lkie«i;o Mvor Irtiasfor ^afi«^« to*
SOtl»7 with all rli,lit» tltlo and laturest «w au^ h^YO ia aagr
aad all of tiie ao^ota, goo4 will asitl yro^ortjr of th« »aiO
Cliloaco HiTor fraanfer SOayaMy** ¥lirra ««r« alao i«tro4aoo«
ia OTia^^QM, roooipto oigaod Iqt )ioAiiah and a»l—i,w whmT*\^
oa^ a«toao«ie<IS04 r^<3«ipi froR iteaor of $t,ftce.«T, ^iac
"iMOraoiit In full af say «hftro ©f prof i to oara«4 \ff Chioa^O
HlTor Traacfer Coa^asijr fros» Svammxy I, 1916 m» to w»d iaeltt4»
i^C 4ato liar<N»f (Vobraaysr 23, 1M7) th# »«ld aMOaal of 42S<»3.87
0»flp«aar iHi* S3r« <iAy of y«bruR>r» ]^17*«
fm »SjKfi«dL««tt#)i of th« <»i^?TstJi«a «&» ttl«« diss*
«lo»«d lir !>» «¥iSime«« i)ft« ^rrtifieate of ^n^let* oxs«i^»»»
0wt4«m9m alfto 4i«aUia4Ni «l»ttt«« of tlw te«r4 of 4iJ'«'Ote]i'o of
%h« oorporfttiott ^pprovias «<^(^ aacc^tii^ «t«rtiiia frro$>4^rtjr«
"•««•« «iid off«x«4 biy Christ toplwr MamftX', ^r« in p<qr»«ai of
otedK fttt^erilM»4 for »« follovo, neba«ni 2^ »lt»rt«: M«AMCh, Sar.
ftO »]bftr*»; is«Aa«li» Jr, 15 e^^i^«a; Ma««r •Xr. IS otermt ttiaid
Smor $r«, »0 otmreo, "o^acuntm^ in lOl U |15.C0C», li i« not
Amur frois tlio roo»rtf« Imi {^rssygsAbljr tlM ^eportj tlao turiMMl
itt to the oer9#rfttl9s ty %am»r eoneist«4i of Uae Wat* and texigos
vldttli hi34 iMNm Mi»i«ii«<i to ttia %s^ the o«Kj>l*ia«at i^otmyan tuiA
tl» dofOA^ftSt lUMMik Ui4 «rhi#i Im^ !»•*» tl»o pfvp«rtir of tlM
portaex^ohip.
flid «vl4^qt«« furtlaAX' sJaOK* Ui« aooo^oitiaft ha4 of
tto p«rt]t«roMi» tottslttoeo at t)»8 tAtt« of tho <li«iMi»l«ti«>« of tli«
f>ikrtneTM>!BAp, Tfrnt tMe it s^^jMPsro tl»t oa^ of i*i» ^ortaom
ori^j^lly «dT«a««d $^€4«6e ma^ tHot mat^r imd fttfr^itoodi. froai
tin* to tlMfi. ftscioito ftgsr<ic«tij^ #14««d7.8S, Thlft «»• <l«ljr
r«9«ti<i to Mm* Ttoe profit* of tbo f^r^fnnTtehXp 3i»&xA.n%i»a to
^7,&5S,«2 f^t %h» tl»« of tHo ^IreoletioB imd tn4» w«o 4iYl4«4
equolljr Wt««*?tt tlift tH:«c psrtnero. Xi 99]?<im.Ttt tliftt th# eitjr
paid scthlRK to thf i»«.rtf»«raMp «siiaer tiu»ir «>oetre><:t u»l^ii
ilea ve« (»i^ftHl«4Mi «ji4 tJM' dlsii6l»iien cMpre^^^^t ef F«br«»x3r
83, 1917 ««L« ex«eut«4. BslOMMn i«Hitifl«d thii&t ih«i thr««
9artn«r» Maid • «o«r«r«m«ii At that il«« «nd tiwii ii w«£ oatfeyw
•tM»4 ihfct yie «orpor*ti<»a mi« tc "eocitlBu^ In b«isia«S8 thm
mmmm &• tta^«r %!»» QepftrtR^rfiMp}* that MeAavh 8«.la tiiAi *«L2
•ur iai^i^r^stc wfrald hm Ui« mmc' in tite «Rwittfiiiqr «te it ^m.* in
\Me (SO|Mirui«r*M9*» stad thmt ^eAasfe «Kplsia«4 i^t lh«i f9naa»
tion of ib« ottx^orisiica «ae adviealde to tlm% 4Jb«>y would £«%
•aay froB ]|^r«»aal iiabillty, Umt^it teeUfi»a th^t there was
ao ««ntie« aatfo of tmy iadividttal Xia1»liitj^ luna Utat b« did
aat iMNir avQr oueh r«%&tHrs »^4i!> ^ ^oAaolb Ismi th»>t the latter
«t«t«4 tifeit it vft« ailljT for tbmm, %& aako a fttrth)^!* <a»utw*&i
with t^ Cit,)r- l»9««»a»« it would aet j^ay aoijftljiittss tl^mt eaz%as»
lH»d ¥«oa tejulod for olevea s^atho aa<i Uu*/ H«td re«$^iT«d aotMags
that tJMy did net kaetv vliotter tb^ aoula g«t Kdj^ m»a«y; tlj&t
ifauoor iiad edvaaoad all tJ^ mem&f a»d it «ao aot right for his
to ¥««y thet Wrdoa and ftuggcetatt tlMt if thejf voat farther a
eor^oratioa oteald l>«t oxigstaisad aad that thegr »heal<i And^aYor
to fiat »(Mie of tk# paa^aagor Woiaooa boiavaa thm mwiaioip«l
Pior aad Liaoola BmA, SIia arid^soa •imiHt tbftt aftar tli« eer»
i»oriitio« «»e organiaad* »on« offort «aa aada to aoi|aif« a oaall
ptkmm*9^0r st#jHa«r but ih<^ ^roj<>9t fall tlKroagh*
Bolanaa farther ti^otififtd that after Vnn ergsiaixa*
iloQ of iter oor]poratioaa %ivr- boat* and 'b^.wg.mn tranofarr«d to it»
oontiau«d i« th« ^arl^a^ge OftrTylaf oervioo «sd tho ba«in»«o «*m
eondaeiad ao fora«rljr* Wvmw doiac tisie iaaida imwk aaa iiolsMaa
tto# «t3i«l<« wtvki %}m% in SuXjf XW^ ii«Mui«li ••rtt for hin «»4
ilMiM it fron lii«a %m% te (il«Aiuik) Aid Tm% liktt %hatx saUoii
an A ih(k% ilM •»»!»»«% l»«loiic«4 to U%it vomftagr, wa^ thiii tM«
•ittrt«4 He)»MMi i« iair«sU|^U«c« Mmmy ter>Ufit« ti»«t i«»
•r Uar«« wtmkm *f%«r t)i« «x»8aii»ii. ftf Ut» 4itt*eliiU$ii «4pr««(»
a«itt ftnd Uw ttffgikslmiUs^n of U)« w»ri'«3rft«i«i9 i^^ UPt« le»wi of
to sKudToii of frt«4lt %» HilnwMi, tli« Ittttor oiUMr t# IdM bAH^
ttokod Mn to tAk« Mt otoOk ond eivo him $e««'>CO siitf timt ht
onijr 9tm HohioTm ott«« «ft«r thot uritam a»taiMni imum U» him
maA vmiVmI to ooll Ma o ««»«• MtoAfioli «&o not ia Uio «itar
ftt t&« ti»o of Ui« hoarittg onA <li<i oot tct«tify«
Tlio %ill ia,i«co4 ii»it]M»]r fjroitdi aor fiiilitr« of «o»»
oiO«rotioA «a4 4id «s»i 001^ %h» oottiay ooido of Uto o«jroo«MM»i
of JTolunHisy as. i9i9« if amoor im» «imM th* toMryoo o»d !»o1mi
Wloagiaa: to th» otrjierotioii in iho «x«o«tiOA of « eontrooi
for tte wupiariiic of goiiitaMie wHioli h« iAOiYi<ta«a.ljr o«t«r«4 into
«it<> tiM GiV of caai«9t«o, lH» fiMig^ 1»« lioliio to oooo%nit for tti*^
MOO to Um oor^oroti^l wma ^iMuma amy haTO oort&iii righto
itt tlioi oomiootiwi 00 • otoolcholdor in %t^ oorporotioa* I»
ottr O0liiio« Ui« fxnaiac «»<' ^)t** oheutieollor t^Mit tho ^Krtnorohiy
heui, to««a 4i«»oiYod or4 a finoi « oootmtiiie of iU Imvioooo $nXjf
]Mi4 Itgr tuo portaoro* io fully 0ttpj»orto4 ^ tlio wrid«tnoo. In
t)i« olNiMioo of fvo»4 or nietoko ouoii o 4io»oliiti&« «a4 oooo^mt*
ia« i» liiMiiAg oa ti5«f i».*ra«», iaSJISft ▼* la2aMlSfi&* "^ iii-
App. 237; 220 XIX, 344; ^olyiy^ooff T« i^^ttlX* ^^ ^^^* ^^*«
«o fiB4 ae orror In tiw r«oor4 mm4 %la^r*frm tAo
4«4sako»t of %h» tayorior Ooturt io «ffii»o4»
fAZL^« 1P»J. ASii c*di'S»<;^H» J, c«..*ii:;^H«
113 - 25567
ALPKONS H. GITS and Rm.I J.(^?3, )
copartners, doing business t^a )
GITS BROTHERS'l'ATTUPACTimiN^CO., )
Plaintiffs in J^rcr, )
▼8. \ / ' ) niPCriT COUHT 01?
HEin^Y ULLRICH and ELTirET J*. MCELROY, )
Def en daunts ijl Error, )
COOK COUNTY.
l"R, JUSTICE THOMSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The complainants. Gits Brothers I'anufacturing Co., filed
their bill in equity, seeking the rescission of a contract for
the purchase rf certain land, and the return of the iucney tiiey
had paid under the contract and the cancellation of certain
notes they had executed in connection with the purchase, on the
ground of fraud. Demurrers interposed by the defendants were
sustained and the bill was dismissed as to the defendant ic-
Elrcy, for -Afant of equity, while complainants were given leave
to amend as to the defendant Ullrich, but they elected to abide
by their bill, whereupon fae bill was dismi33ed as to that de-
fendant also.
Complainants sued cut a writ of error from the 3il*
prerae court on the theory that a freehold was involved. That
court held otherwise and transferred the cause tc this court.
The complainants signed a written proposition to
buy the land in question from Ullrich for ^6,850, of which
$5,000 was to be paid upon tender of a warranty deed and a
Guarantee lolicy and the remainder in monthly instalments of
$600 each. This proposition recited that complainants purchased
the premises on condition that Ullrich "procure for us an agree-
ment or a letter from the leoples Gas Light & Coke Company, that
they will furnish gas on or before Kay I, 1918," and further
that lie "procure for us an agreement or letter"f roci the City of
Chicago for the furnishing of a water main, and further that he
"negotiate with the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad" for the ex-
tension of a switch track ao as tc serve the preiuisea in ques-
tion.
The ccfliplainants delivered the written proposition
to Ullrich and at the same time paid him i^500 as earnest money.
Later a deed to the property was duly delivered to coaplainpn ta
and accepted by them, at which time they discovered that thej
title had been in l'c7<!]roy. At this time the complainants pala
the further suun of $4,500 and executed nnd delivered their notes
for the bnlMnce, Ullrich did not furnish the desibred assurances
as to gns, water and switch track services, when the deal was
closed, saying that' it took time to accomplish those things,
petitions had to be prepared and other formalities complied with,
that he had been in the real estate business in Chicago for
many years and his word was good and that if complainants would
accept the deed and pay the cash required and execute and deliver
their notes for the balance, he would procure contracts for
gas, water and switch track service as soon as possible -
certainly before the first note fell due. Complainants alleged
in their bill tliat tiiey relied on Ullrich's representaticns and
paid their mcnev and delivered their notes, but that he had never
done as he agreed.
There were a nxjurnber of causes of demurrer interposed
by the defendants, but in our view of the case we need refer to
but one or two of them. The question of whether a partnership
existed between the defendants is immaterial. Assuming that
there was, the demurrers were nevertheless properly sustained
for the bill disclosed that complainants had a complete and
adequate remedy at law. furthermore, the bill fails to show
any fraud or mierepresentation on the part of Ullrich, nasuming,
of course, the truth of all allegations it contains. Fraud and
misrepresentation, to warrant relief in equity, must h?ive to do
with facts, in exist'^nce or represented, 03 "being in existence.
The things relied upon hy ccmplainants in their hill were solely
promises by Ullrich to dc something in the future. T^en if we
assume that at the time Ullrich made the promises he had no
intention of fulfilling them, there was not such fraud and mis-
representation as would give complainants the rif^ht to relief
which they seek in equity. Kill er v. 3u 1 1 iff , 241 111. 521;
Shamb erg v. Stearns , 178 111. App . 587; Feithley v, Ijutual ^ Lif e
In 3 . Co . , 271 111. 584. Adequate relief, however, could be had
in a court of law, where they might sue for damages suffered by
reason of Ullrich's breach. The damnges suffered, if any, were
easily capable of proof in an action at law in which respect the
case at bar differs from the first case above cited.
In our opinion, the ccntroct to purchase became fully
executed when the deed was accepted by complainants and the money
wr>s paid and the notes delivered. Complainants had engfi^ed to
but the Innd en certain conditions, naTi^ly, that tjiirich "prcotfTe*
certain assurances for gas, water and switch track service. He
had not done as agreed when the deed was tendered. The condi-
tions whicn ccmplainante had attached tc their offer of pur-
c}riase were conditions precedent. Under the terras of their pro-
posal, complainantB might have refused to accept the deed and
pay their money or execute and deliver their notes, until the
desired assurances were furnished, as stipulated, but they chose
to waive those conditions and closed the transaction, relying on
Ullrich's promise to procure the contracts for the services
tq9'X9l
nt ail
; ik .III
. : --./JtO ©TV
■\j9noi2 'iil-f bna uttfBnlAXqmot,
vfitrt riotlr
- . ■ . ■b^'r*bn»'# €:■■
-01(1 "X-t^ri^' "ao ai3Brt»;f oda -zai)! bsooicr a«f
no ife
«©oivt»e c
desired as soon as possible. If inirich has fpiled to fulfill
hia pi-oir:ise, the conpl ain^r ts h^ye the usual renedies at law,
but they may not file a "bin in equity seeking, hs they do here,
a rescission of their contTa.ct, on the ground of fraud and ?jis-
r epr e s en tat i c n .
We find no error in the record and therefore the
decree cf the Circuit court is affirmed.
APFIRIJED,-
Taylor, I . J., and O'Connor, J., concur.
.^1
Vd'T' ;^6381.\
\
.Alil.133 fXc
CRABL
OtCORD,
▼e,
.!!D?HiCK fi. BAHfLgTm& Co.,
ABmAL mod
Q\j?' RIOB. COURT
COOK CO^IY, ^
219I.A. 651'
m. JUsriCK fiiOSJSOS dellTarea the opinloa of the ooart,
. the plaintiff, r.olcorfl, brought t- is action for tb«
ooavereloa of oertaia property whioh He olsimed haa been destroyed
by and oarried aira^ with the eoneent of the defendant, kt the
close of the plaintiff® eridenoe the eourt gave the jury a per-
emptory inatruotian to find for the defendsuat. Following that
rerdlot, the ootxrt entered Judgment for the ooets ftgalnst the plain-
tiff, to rererse Mhieh he haa perfected thla appeal.
Certain Isnd wsa leased by the Pullman Land Aaeoola*
tion, owner, to Q«e Qwathmey, ae tenant. Subsequently Coloord
aoqalred the rlghta of Gwathraey, baying the baildinge which had
been erected, and later he took two euoceeding eeta of leaaee on
toe property (in two pareels) from the X-and Aeaociation, the
laat onea expiring February 28, 1917. The property ooatained
certain fencing oonalating of poate and wire and an old building
which had been repaired and lisprofed by the different tenants.
There were also eertain farming out-houaea. There wa» fcorae farm
machinery on the property.
The leaeeeto the plaintiff eont«laed his nereoment
not to "underlet eald premlsea or any part thereof, or mi^eign
thia leaee without the vrlttea aaaent", of the landlord. By
•li-
the terms of the !©«»«» the landlord reservad *'th« right to
enter u: on the premleee for the purpoeee of making uns klnA
of ttse they ^ay de£i|re, at any ^f-l-^e during the term of thie
le&t^e, axid in oaee of aucli entr^ the rental of the imbiber of
aeree so need by the parties of the firet part ahall be de-
doeted," in which erent th« plaintiff tea&it agreed he xvouTd
"a&ke no olaim vtoatsooTer for lose of orope, fertllizlAg of
the land, or any other olsln," agaiast the landlord.
Hhw Piillraan Land Atisoolatloa eubeoqaently eoa-
▼eyed the land by warrwaty deed to the Ghloago Title ds Trust
Company, which held it In trust under an agreeraeat with Fred-
erick ii. Bartlett & Co^npany, ivhlch in effect waa Bartlett,
personally.
Without obtaining any concent fi-on the ovmer, as
the leacec proTided, the plaintiff sublet all the property
bat 5 vacant acres to one Peterson, reserTlag the right tc
the nae of part of one of the ont buildlnge.
The plaint iff recelTCd a written notice fro's the
Pulltjsan land Aeaociatioa, oader date of October 31, 1S16, ad-
Tising him that the property In q[ne»tioa "hms been tsold, and cald
leasee are thereby terminated. Xn ^iccerdaaoe with the tearau*
cad conditions contained in eald leaeee, you are hereby requoet-
ed to iiseicdlately vacate said * * • property aad delirer up
pcBccfision thereto. Upon so doinf, we will rebate to ^ou the
rental for the unexyired term of said leacee." '?he plaintiff
retained pCBseeaion of the property until after his le?iaeB ex-
pired, ?ebrttary 2ft, 1917. Me testified he told the retsreoac
they might remain on the property until April, 1'17, and they
-3-
fllA ao» 3o«netl?ne in liareh or pril th^ asfenAant bfigaa opera-
tions on the property, lookiiig tovjard i^t? BubdlTlslon and sale,
iie begaa the ereotlon at a amell briek buliaiof to be uaed ^m i^
of flee* sidewalks were laid, ^bout thl» ti^te the fenee poety
were pulled ap and the wire m&& rolled Vip, Moat of the poete
Aleappeared* the budldingei were torn do^m fi.n& r».ocit. If not all,
of the lofflber dleappeared* The yarloue pleoes of farm maohla-
ery oa the pre'^isee alse dlsappesred. It Is for the Talue of
this property th«t the plaintiff broijght thla emit a^alnat the
defendant •
!?het defeBdant'e entployees took dowa the feneee
and bulldlagB le aot denied* The plaintiff 'a erlclence faile
to show that the fenees a.>id buildlagB were resnoTable fixture* •
Xa the absenee of eome efcotring to the eontrary, it siaat be
presumed that they paaeed with the land to the defendant'*
trustee, t e Chleago title & Trmst Corapanj', tmder the wear-
raaty deed frora the Pall^nan Land A.ssoclation. There is ao
eridenee in the, record tejadlng to oharaetoriae thaa as remoT-
able fixtiiree, tmle&e It be the bare faet that the plaintiff
pure riaeed the buildinee froi fiwathmey.
Bat even if we treat the feaee» and baildinge as
retnoTable fizturee, it eeeae ele^r thst the plaintiff loet all
right to the"! when he failed to resole thera before the end of
his terrn, and while He renaiaed in poaaeeBlon »e tenant. (111.
8t8. J. ^ A. ptir. 70tS); Penaelly re. ?hleben . § 111. App« 496;
yellom> Ts. Johnaon . 1B3 111. pp. 42.
A© far as the farwla^ lraplesen*B are ©oaoerned, the
eridence does not ehow that the defendant had an^rthlag to do
with their diaappeeiranoe. the tem«nt testified thst workmen
fraa th« Pallaian sliopft paBsiia orer thia property aight aafl
mornlag; that tte f»iif« poat* dlaflqpp«ared la the night but the
wire V9M still there «he& he left the prcttiMs early iB 4prll*
A vitaeee for plaintiff testified that he a aw a iftaa who mm
hauliag cinders on the property, hanl swajr the fiaxra maohlnes
behind his wagon. Cinders were used la the oonatraetion of the
sidewalks. The of floe manager for defendant, sailed as a wit-
ness hj the plaintiff, testified that MoLaughlin Brothers built
the sidewalkB.
In our opinion the plaintiff's eTidenoe failed to
aake out his case said the trial oourt did not btt in dlreotiJE^
the jury to find the defendant not guilty* *ihe Judgnent of the
Sviferiox Court Is therefore affiziaed.
7aylor, ?• i., and O'Connor, J., oonour*
cM^7<r^-^
173 - 2S428
SDWARD SUlilVAH and yBAifK SULMVAH,
oo^pertnert , doing bueineae as
BQLLI YAH BROS.,
\
\ Appellee*,
APPEAL mOI
IRmiCiPAL 0GUR5?
09 OH GAG 0,
gl9l.A. 657
MH, JUSnCi- T}]0;;iON delivered the opinion ©f
the oourt.
the plaintiff e brought this aetien of the fourth
olaOB in the Muaiolpal Court of Ohioago, ••eking to rr^coyer
the purohaee price of 24 lambs » 7 sheep saddles and 23 plus
(heart, lungs and liTsr) which they alleged had been sold
and dellTered to the defendant* The eridfrnca vas presented
to the oourt without a jury r^^ealting in a finding for the
plaintiffs and a jud^pseat in their faTor for the aaount alalia^
•4, I179.35, to rsTr^rse vhieh the defendant has perfected this
appeal. It i& the oontention of the defendant that when his
buyer. Stern, purchased the goods in queetlcn fvsa the plai»-
tiffs, he put an indelible ink stway on all tlie Issbs and
saddles, and when delirery w&e made to his plaee sf business
two dsys later, the lasibs and saddler. deliTer^d were not the
onec 80 marked but vers much inferior, and he returned tlum
to the paoking tasuse at which the plaintiffs did their kill*
ing. The defendant kept the 23 plux for vhich he was willing
to pay the agreed price of #2.30. Of course if the facts were
as defendant o>ntends, he would haTS the right to return the
(■^f
, s^Zishit&
-2.
lambs and SAddCL«8 and retain the plux.
'X'h« only iamia presented on this appeal !»•
Tolvee the question of whether the oeurt*e finding and
the judt^ent are against the manifest weight ef the eYi*
denoo. 7or the plaintiffs, one Bowman testified that he
wk» 8 l}uteher employed hy the plaintiffs; that he sold
the laabs and sheep saddles to Stern, the defendant's huyer;
that the latter put a staaq^ en each one of th«^m, this Bt«89
SMking a maxk en the sieat in indelible ink; that he (the wit*
ness) helped delirer these pieeee of oxeaA to the vagea, hand**
ing theia out one hy one and that at th;>t time each pieoe
carried the stanp referr«?d to and that the meat was then ia
good condition; that twe days after the meat was delirered it
was returned Vut they would not r^ceiTe it. One Lynch testi-
fied for the plaintiff e that he loaded thr lambs and saddles
with Bowman and that each pieoe had a titimB^ on it; that he
delivered the meat to the defendant* e place of businese and
that Jje, Sterfe siipied the ticket; that at that time the de»
fendant asked Stern if they were etaaiped and that the witness
replied that they were and that the defendant said something
to Stera about the price being too high; that on the follewlag
day the defendant askt the witness to take the meat badk but he
said he had no authority to do that, and the day follewingi
the meat was returned to the pa ok ing houee by an expresanen;
that the witness than saw the steat and the **s tamps were tore
off, out off the legs of erery lamb*. The plaintiff, Bdward
Sullivan, testified that he saw the laaOie after they had beea
purchased and before they were delivered and notioed that
they were staaqped but did not notiee what stamp It was; that
aft«r the lanbs had bsen r turned, they *had a aartc where
there was a stanp on them but it had been out off and the
■"vdrrv's.m'' ? jj.ew
...... ■ ..-rU
no 3tXAii 41 BaiaUUE
vll^h a^>«ri«l (MtMX
-j-iiii^' ikftiX-lu-x
■■-.-•■-■Tim
st«a9 9t th« ink wae still on the laalsa whrre they tried
to serfttch it off"; that h« exajoined each of the Iaai1»« after
th«y were r«tumed« On* Kennedy testified that he saw Stars
huy this aaat and that he saw the staaqp on the laa^a Wt did
aat knaw what etaap it was, and that ha saw theea ivabt leaded
and that the ones loaded w«r« the aaaie ones that were stajap«d|
that he saw them after they were returned and could 8«e,wher«
the staaip vaa removed, ^the;} did not get it all off »• thrre
was still ink on the ahavp"* Tor the defendant, iiJtem testi*
fied that at the tlma he purohasad the lasiba and iaddlee ha
asked one of the paekara, at the plant where the plaintiffs
did their killing, to loan him a staiqp as he did net haTC
the defendant's etaiap with hia and that he used thie Isorrovad
stamp in b tamping the laaiba and aaddlee which he purohi&aed;
that Bow&tan wee present at that tine hut that he did not
remember seeing Kennedy about; that he signed the reeaipts for
the lanbc and aaddlee when ihey were delivered but he was very
busy at the tiae and did not aauniBe them; th&t he put the!n on the
scale and then hung then up and that when he exaained thea
fifteen or twenty minutes later, he notie<p^d that they were
not the laaba that he had stajqped but if%T» of a vezy ittferiei*
gz>ade, whereupon he tried to r^aoh the plaintiffs ever the
telephone; that he sant them back to the paeftiing houea by
an expressisan the next aorning; that the paaking house later
called hia up and said that the |ilain tiffs' instructions ware,
not ta receive the goods as they were the ones that had beat
purohaced and that the witness replied that they ware not the
goods he had bought and that he would not aooept thea; th&t
the packer said he would have to send thaa t« a oowBiseioa
man for diepositlon snd askcu trhether they should be sent under
the naae of the witness or the plaintiffs and the witness r9»
Sii.iS?S
. .i'i
. son
.4-
plied that the goods boXonged to the plAintlf re and that
they should not l»e seni. under the nam« of the witness; that
later he reoeirod a eheok for #78*73 from the paoking hou80»
presunahly as th« preeeede of the sale through the conusission
nan but that he returned the chook to the pacdcing houst. Ho
denied that ho had reaoTod the staa|po from the lam1»s or saddles
at any time after putting them on. The defendant testified
that about 9 o^olodc en the a^rnxng of thc> delirery of the
meat to tho defendant's place of husineseit Stem came to
hia and told him that these lamb* and saddles vere not the
goodE? he had purchased and that he osaainod each Isaba to see
if it was stamped and that nono of them wer«: staaqped whoii
he examined them.
In rebuttal , one of the membern of the paolcing
house firm rf;f erred to, testified thnt he saw the goods in
quetftion after they had boen returned and that the stax^e
kad been removed,* <*the stf.mp had been out off; it showed vhor«
they h'-d been cut off." He t»»stified further that he had
loaned Ctera a ttsuMp on the ee asicn of the purchase in ques»
tion, end this staa(p did net have the defendant* e name on it.
BowMUnn had testified that the stai^ included the defendant's
initials end Lyndsi had testified that it included the name
"Oppenheimer, "
On that «4«tt of the rooord w« are unable to Mgr
tkttt the JUdgnoat is against the manifest waight of tho
OTidence, Certainly, if the court bolloTed that the witnoosos
for the plaintiff were telling t>ie truth, to the effect that
the lambs and saddles which Stem admits he had purchased and
put the stamp on, were the ones aotuaily delirered to the
nq
i^ofis \im.i
\iX4f«iaii;3'-"i;5
;-!««
"^d' &»|l1»j!)
ili \/is ia
ifc © l» ♦
$ ^£{«cfi3 tjUi^
rtftlsm»V
1 ^,9Kl
^Ju^
■jiim 9tt
AfOrt
two ««»<f A«/J Tpwtj
-,rl*
uU inn
• 5.
dffenaant and r^c«ipt«ci for by Steirn* th^-rc ife eT»ry r.-^RBoa
whjr th<? jtttfgiitent. for ihe plaintiff sh&uid ^^ive Was entered.
fhe f«et thtiit tvo cf the vltneceefi gere tcstimcjiy, tending
to indloato thAt the etanq^ useU by Stem iva« Qppenhoimer**
■ tanpf wto»refte it is quite appureuw i'roa the record th««t it
was net, would not neces&arily furnish & rsaaon for rcY**!?!-
lAg the judgment.
We find no wrrer la the record and therefore the
Jud^uent of the Muni oip&L Court te affirmed*
iOmmQCB.
I'AYLOR, 9, J, ASD 0*CC»!«CR^ J. CCS^OUE.
■ \ /
199 - 25440
/ '
OCUFiY.
219I.A. 65T
MM» Simtim tummiS 4«liTer«d th« epiHion «f
tlkfl aeart,
I
Th« plaintiff, Mr»« Beilly* brouisht iMs motion
ag&iatt th« d9feiMi&ate. s«@kiiftg te r<^90Tar dA»w|E«« whidi
Bhe dlaiai«d to hav* auffered as a result of an injury all«g«d
to har* l»*«a received hy har whila a pa»»«i3g«r on one of
their mirs. Tho i88u4»» vere sulmittocl to a Jury kb4 they
returned a rardlet finding th« defendaxsts aot guilty, follow
lac vhiah the oourt antereci Jud^aiont a^ainot the plaintiff
far eo«t», to reveraa which she hjia ptrfeoted this appaal.
In oupport of her appeal the plaintiff contenda
that Uie judgment 1r agaimat tha ssanifaat waight of the
OTidcmaa aad further that th«t court arred ia the glTiae of
eertain ia^itructiona. ne hstTe carefully eaouained th*- erl-
denoa aa wa fiad it in the r^'cord and are of tha epiaioa
that tha plaintiff* h first ooatention ie not tenable.
Tha plaintiff aad har ):)ua1»and, with their taa
ahildraa, a girl af about ei«;ht ymsiT* and a hoy a ye&r or
ao younger , toeoama pasaangare on th^ oar in (jua^tian about
SjSO o*<3la«dic OB tha oTanias ^f '^'^^y ^» 1916, at ffsntworth
aTanua in tho City of Chicago, fhe e»r wa» a waotbound
^i'^r: * ttftX
, /
^.iU> litis
i^UHStOTH
-2-
oar OB dird street. The |>IainUff and her ttmily hsKi )3««n
Tlsltiac relatiTe* during th« day and were retumlns to
ihoir homo in Jollot, IlXinexo. Vh«n thoy got on the oar
there were « nuMber of pas&en£«ro otanding and th«^ soata
were all •eoupiod. It is not aliei^ed or olaimipd that de»
fendantn w^r^ negligent in permitting the of^r to >b« OTor*
•rovAod. It ie not elear just how orow4od the oar was.
Alt^iiough the reeords of the defendant* obew 332 fares oel*
leetod during the trip, it appears that th^ oar was fill(?d
and emptied several tiaes as it interoepted sereral north
asd south am in lines, at which nunhers of passengers trans*
f erred. Trom a reading of the testimongr as to this point It
would appear that there w»re quite a nuaber of people stand*
ing in the isle in th^ rear par% of tim oar but not so nuu9Qr
in th<^ front part. Vhum the plaintiff and her fastiljr got
on the oar her husband and the little bojr renaiaed on the
b&ttk platfons while the plaintiff and her little girl went
into the oar and stood in the isle at a point a little ah«a4
of thi? oenter of thft oar. The plaintiff* s husband tostl*
fied that a "pretty good sised ^y**, sixteen or eighteen
years of ago, got on the oar at thf^ baok platform after thegr
lyut boarded Mi's oar and that he was: earrying a large bundle
•f aowspapere, over two fe«»t in height, on hie baek; that
he was standing in the way of the paaeengers and th<' conductor
told him to go inside, whicm he did; that he did noi see the
boy Bisain after that. He further tet^tified thet fifteen or
twenty ainuteo after this bay got on the oar it gare a •terri-
fio Jerk"; that it was going te stop and nearly did so but
before eoaing to a full stop, it started up egain; that it
Jorked him forward against the railing and then threw hia
baek against the badk of the earj that aft«»r this Jark he
\i'ikt}
li/^i ii^ilo'^X
ii i.- ^SiOft^'t
iA-if sno'it''--
»•© iwt* In
3,j.^ ... v.,i« &«a[t»t.
•3»
w«nt inside of the oar And fttund hi? hoy, who had g«n« Int*
tho oar oftve Uiao before, blevuiaiE nt th* mouth Aitd that a
littlo furth«»r alojig he found hie wifo ijriajf beak on & ooat
ia a oort of Ktupw; that htt ^i^ net notioe any^l»odx vith
papers around (.here th^n; that aft<^r tiMty had gone about
half a aile further he told th«^ aonduotor that hif vife had
h«(^n hurt, 'ihtf plaintiff testified that as she ana the little
girl were standing In the isle, a boy with newspapers on his
shoulder paased further up toward the front end of thr> oar
and that later when he was on his wagr baok to th«« rear of the
aar, the oar gRris e jerk and threw the boy a«;aiast her "and
between the Jerk of th^ o».r and hia, it threw me off my fe<^t";
that she fell badcward, sttriking the end of a seat with the
b«s« of her spiae and then fell to the floor; that the bundle
•f papers the boy was oarryiag, ''extended froB iiis ehoulder to
hie head*; that before thf> jerk she noticed that the oar alaest
oaae to a stop; that thie "threw us forward »nd then it started
up ac^ia with a little Jerk and threw us bacdcward**; that her
spiae iond hip eollided with the saat; that eoTeral people helped
her up and she fainted as they were? doing so. Ihe little girl.
eloTon years old, at thp time of the trial, deseribed the ooour-
rence eubetantially as her aether did. Sih^ said that the bundle
of newspapers was "about two «id a half fe«?t high; the eice of
aewspapers, a little hii^her theii ii was wide* they were tied
together"; that a nmn get up and gave the bay a eeat and he put
the papers on the floor and when he got up, as he was putting
the papers on liis baok the oar Jerked and threw hin forward
aad the papers hit her mother and she fell down.
The plaintiff and her husband tertified that she
ooatinued in a condition of stupor until they r»»aehed the end
of th* line and that jrib« then left th« oar vith h*r taaftb«aA*g
&s&letaao«( he placing M.g arm ab«ut her to support her and th«
oonductor «■ (dieting is hel|»ine h«r to gftt »ff the d&r. ¥h«gr
trAnaf erred &o ¬h«r ear «M oh took th«m n9m9 dist^inw furthar
vh«ie the/ »K«ln tsWeferrftd to this intsrurban 11r« which aart*
rie^ then thlrtj^ or forty milee to th«^ alt/ of Joli«>t, 7h«y
loft tho Xattor <»r iWYeraX hXockB from th«ir hoa« and tho plain*
tiff* 8 hueband t<*>jptifl»<:i that he c&rrl«d har all the way fraa
th« oar to hor homo ftnd that ha thnn oalled their fasiily physio Ian*
who oame la about aa hour, fho dootor testified thai upon this
oocaoloB h« found h«r baok and hip braisod,* bl»ek and blutt and
T«ry ooneltlve to touoh; that oho ocnuplsined of t«rrlbl« pala
and ho Karo hor a hypodanolo Injootlon of raerphino{ that h«
Tieltod hor every iM;^ for ihre« or four waekOt during ahieh time
her oendition ooatinuod Tory aorrouo and the oonplained ootttlA*
uolly about her bacde anci hlpo; that eh» restai»ed In ba4 ooToral
«o«Jeo and ho Tlslted her ^rery few <lay» up t@ the nlddle of
Ootober,
At the tine of th«^ trial, Mrs* Heilly va« thirty
years of aico and she had beoa married twolTO years. Zt appoaii
from the evldonee that In 1938 • shortly prior to her taaMtit^,
while working at a store in Jollet* eh« fell throtagh a trap
door in that otore. ^e t«>Ktlfied th»t this did not injure
hor oeriouoly but care h«r a bad stuklag up. It fuxther ay*
paared that In J^eoember 191S, while the plaintiff and her
family were getting en or oi'f a oar In Jollot, soiaethlng hap-
pened «hloh It was olalmed oauoad an injury to the plaintiff* s
little bey and on that oooaolon they settled isith tha street
ear eempaay for $100«00. The plaintiff's laiLsband teetlfloA
that thle represented |2S for the Injury r<?celTod by the boy,
|26 for the lose of time suffered by the wltnese 1^ reason of
f«-'s;>
-5-
th« Aoeldant, aatf fftO e<M9«nttfttloa to th« pXiilBtirf for hjtr
OAX« of th« b«y, Th* «TicL«ne« further shovrtd tliRt 1b 1913
%h* plaintiff* s mother ana hrothar «»»• to her hom« and the/
got into nn alte^Loation, her mother striking her in the faeo
and tripping her up so that she fell to the floor. It fur>
ther appeared that in 1917, aftar the aoaid«nt inTolred in
the ease at bar» the plaintiff vae a paaeengor on a etreot oar*
in the oit^ pf Joliot. which juflved th*" traole and that on that
oooaaion ahe i^unde a eettleiuent with the ooaq^anjr for #13S. She
testified that on that oo«isiott she was in hod for nearly n
month. She aloe ojqperienoed a fainting spell at the tine of
that aooident. From the testinonjr of the plaintiff aad lier
hnsbaad it api^earo that she hae had these fainting spells rery
frequently sinoe the oeoaeion of the aooid'mt inrolTod in the
ease at har hut that she had nvyer been in the habit of faint*
ing proTioue to that time.
At the tine of the trial the oonduoter of the ear in
quer.tion, who' had left the esploy of the defendants in Oetober,
1916. we^s a faraer in wis eons in. He testified he had refreshed
his r« oolleotion of the alleged aooldent frota hi:^ trip sheetf^
that on that txip they had an arerage load of passengers; that
ho had not notieed the ; eillys until Mr. KeUly spoke to hint
vhioh w»s 4ust before they reaohed the end of the trip when he
went invide to get the register; that there vera then two other
passengers on the oar; that Mr. Heilly Uld hia hie wife had
been injured by a aan oarrying a heavy parage of pepers into
the oar and that he had btmyed into her; that he epoke to the
other two paa.etigers, in fieilly's pr esenee, and they said they
had net seen the aooident and knew nothing about it, no fur-
ther testified that he generally faeed tti^ front of the oar and
'lA:y
■ISKK} Xlt'
that h« Md 99«n no eOMMfttian on the oar «t any Viae of tlM
trip Hnd ihftt no on« had told him tliat a ladjF had faXl«!>n or
faiat«d{ that irh«n they r«aehed th?; md of the line ho asknd
Bellly if h0> n««dod lurty h«lp and he (^aid* Ho; that th« Hftillya
loft the front ond of th« oar without any a«f;l»tatio« froa hlas
ttet iirs. R«nijr*i elo thing wns not diearraasod in angr wajr and
that she did not appoar to lioy and that h« saw nothing wrong
with oithor of the ohiidren. Ho also testified that he recall «d
ao aowoment of the oar whleii threwhim off hie halanoe or dio*
turbod any of the paoE^ongere and that ho had no reoollcetion
of a newohOjT goiting on with paporo.
¥ho BOtoxamn teetified that nothing oo^Mrr^ d on bhio
trip, requiring an mtergenoy stop and that he did not reaeai1»or
aiqr Jorko during the trip. Soao of the plaintiff's noighhoro
toetified (for the defondanto) to seeing her engaged in hor
uoual houoohold duties, suoh ao han^!;ing out the waoMng* dur<»
ing July 1916 and the monthis of that suMior witon oho teeti«
fied she was alaoot oatiroXy ineaNPAOitatod.
Sho defontento* witne»5'e« eontradieted the tooti*
aoay of the plaintiff iind her husband in a nunbor of parti eu-
laro« XhiB conductor testified that when Mr, Keilly mportod
the alleged aoeid- nt to YiXm near the end of the trip, ho aakod
hia wiqr he had not reported it eooner and that Iteilly r«9Xlod
that the oompaiqr wis not at fault in any way; that he was a
railroad man hl;siBeIf and know that th«? conductor would h»TO
to make a report, Heilly denied making any saoh etatomoat*
AO to the allegea trap»door inoid$>nt, Hro. Caaphell, plain*
tiff*6 next door neigldbor* toetified that at thafctiae the
plaintiff oanplainod about her baolc and that oho said oho
*oaght to hare sued the people for it«. The plaintiff to«ti«
iNim >»tU '^b9ia^mt
?w mid
«7.
fl«4 Bh9 a«v<<>r lAade suoh a iitat«m<»nt to miy}30Ay, fith rnf«r«
ea«« to the atr^fft ear aeeidant of X»«e(ail»»x'» 19X2, oa* Mvun*
eupftrliit«na«nt of iransj^ortatioa of thf> Otle«go «]»4 Joli«t
leiootrlo Itail^'ogr Otoapany, &<>eUfled that ara, Rollly thtm
elalai«?<l tHat oho had b(»#n lnJur«U in thftt aeeld^nt about her
ba<dc» QAttooci "by atriking ii against the soat of th« car and ttiit
whom ^7, Boilly oano to 900 hiru about th« aooldant he a&ld hio
wlfo ha4 reoeiTftd a brttlso on hor baek and that the ear ha4
•toppod auddenl/, oauaing th«<> handle of th(^ deer to strlko
her and that her bade wae blaek tknii blue nnA that the. ohilA
had his lip out by being thrown against th« taat. Beth the
plaintiff and her husband speeifioall^ d«^nied loakiog these
reepeetiTO statesaents. In res«^ to the altereation the plain*
tiff had with her nether and brother* a m1b», Sehnits ti^etlfiedi
that the plaintiff to^d her about Umt OQcnrrenofft saying that
her httshaad was net home at the time and that she lay on the
floor until aer husband ^ame home and found her th^pre; that
her aother hit her b»dc and eh*' v-ould hare to hare an opera*
tlen and veuld nerer be well again; that she had been pregnant
at the tiae and that hmr ejiperienee had cfiuseo a aieoarriage.
lira, Sohnits, the nether of the witnese last reff-rrrt; to,
testified that the plaintiff told her that h*r mother had boa tan
her up and caused a aieearriage, If he plaintiff testified that
she did net faiat at the time ef th« alteroatioa with her nother
and that she was not left in &> faAnting eondition; that she did
aat tell any of her neighbors that she had been badly hurt hy
her aether; that she had aentioaed the iadidf^nt to thea but had
net said she was badly hurt; that e'ne oould not wty she was
pr^nant at th« time or that she wae delivered ef a still bora
ohili and that she had nerer told anybody tlwt she was so de>
lirered. With refwrene** to ths street oar aocld^at of Mareh»
-•«
i» «Ai
^ja»sm
, :*i;R(ff»y
^trSJI *"('*'
1917, on* Jm«k« assiatAai «uperlatend<>nt of %h* OMoetg* Mid
Joli«t Sltotrio iUilway Qomj^mMyt t«etifi«U thai wimm h« taXk«4
with ikr, H«illy mbttul that Aceident the latter stated that his
wifa *g«t hurt on « Casf" 8tr(»«>t oar » » * last nlicht«* shs had
lEi«r spin« hurt by baiaiK pushed against a saat In th<» ear,* thai
shff had bacrn daotarinf; for nine montha • • 'for hffr spine and
shs strudk the sore plao« en the seat, oausins her to faint."
Itr, Belli/ in hla testlaenar speoifl ally denied haTlng mmAt
these statanents .
Miss getaslta t^^stlfied thnt on one oocasion the
plaintiff** hush>j.nd said to her *If yo - do wlwt. I tell you*
ty^Tvi vlll be a lot in it for ^aa," omA that folltfwlag that
•Im had not been on parii«ularly frienAXy terms vith the
Reillys. It alee appeared that th<»re had been sone friction
between the &ehsdta family and th« Reillye, orer the use of
the Keillys* tel<>phone by Miae Sehmlia.
7he ^vary had the adrantage of a personal obserYatien
of all th< BO witnesses as they t« etifi«'d( Hnd with eudti ooa*
flieting OTidftaoe in the reoord as is apitarent from the r#f«r«
enoea to whft<di we hare made, we eannet say that the Tordiot
and Jttd^ent are against the Btanifest weight of the eTidence.
TlM plaintiff further oentends thai the eourt erred
in glTlns the juzy oertain instructions. The first instru«»
tion, giren by thf» eourt* ef whloii the plaintiff eotaplains,
read aa fellows:
*If Jcku belioTO from th« evideao*<» under th«>
inetruotions of the court, that the ear in question,
on the ooeaaion in ;|u< stion, icas being operated with
the highest dt^ree of oare reasonably oonsietent with
the praotioal operation of th« rof^d mnd the mode of con-
▼eyanee adapted and was lasTing with th^ ordiaaiy and
usual moTsment neeeesarily incident to the praotioal
rfi^
-9-
operation of c^id e«tir, and if you fttrt.h«?r b«->
li«y« trum tho «videncft, that th« plaintiff co«id,
1^ •xcrcdftlng ordinary car* cmd (Mution for hi»r emi
s&fotjr, mvo avoiUoti injury • it you bellc^vo fro»
th« OTiaoBoe y^iA^ 8}!ii« vAffii lit|||tt]r«(t on the oooRSion la
^•eUon • aMii that «ii« ncgllgoatly falXod U <lo so,
tban oJmi m-rm&i reooror In tMe east wnA your Tor*
filet «heu>y fee in favor of th« d«f endaate* **
lh» plaintiff ^JoMFgeii in th«; flrot o^unt af i.ha
dcelaratioa th»% the dofondanta noi^igantly yer^ttaa tho
iMy to «at«r tlam oar with ttie large lBundl« an Ms aheuldar
ana to rlda naar t& <,he plaintiff bo that, whll« ohe waa la
the 9X9rni— af ordinary cara, the hay on aoMiuat of tha
■•Tonaat or Jolting of th« mx and hy reason of th« hundla*
loot hie bnlanoo and lyaa thronu agalaot the plaintiff, knadklnf
hn dawn. The seoond oanat «a« like the flrot axoept It was
tlmrtf ehargad that the dofendemta, la tho oporatlen of the aar,
aaaaad It to Jolt an<i J ark with extraordlaary and mwaaal f9r99
aad Tlolenaa, bo that while th<^ pl&intiff waa In tiw oxf^reloa
•f ordlaary oara, aha wa» hy r««&on thereof thro^4^ down and
Injurad^ It is urged tlwt the iastruotloa referred te as*
eladaa the dtaii^ of nagllganoa aade In the flret aouatt* that
tlio ward "operated'* le not hraad enough te inslude the matter af
panel ttlng the "b^y to hoard aad enter the o«jr with the lai^i:a
haaAIa on hie shoaldar. In aijipp&rt of this eoaiention the
plalatlff haa osllod cur attention te a nuaaher of deelaloaa
aad particularly Alahajaa Or eat Southern 3^« Co. r. ftilh<^rt >
d Ala. App. 372. Xa that oaaa tht^ deelaratlon oh&rgad that
tha plaintiff** lajurlee had hoaa oauoeci hy the negligent
aanaar In whloh the defendant •oppratad the train" apon whla9i
ha hud heoa a paoBengar ^hmn injured. It appeared tvfm tl»
BTldfinea that tha train h«d heen ao mviiii that the plaintiff
^'A
-10-
had b««n o)»Xi««<i tc rid* on thn st«p« onct as t}y> train
rounded a Ctttrra at Mgh epet^^, hi^ va* thrown off, i;ha
eourt h«ld that th& words "operate^i th^ traia*, ac aoed ia
the df^eXaration, m«%tnt "ooatsrolXed t>i9 maTan«tit and »p«^d of
th« train**, and thtU it oeaid not be o^id tlsat th« plaintiff
hsA oliaygai that his Injur! <?« wer<? dae to th<» fsilurw of tha
d(«f<i»^ant to furnifth hla a r«a«oiialbl]r aaf« pl%o^ vithia vMeh
te*r«Bkain on «aid tr»in while he wae a paofani^er but only
thst they w#re due to th'^ n<»i^i|E«at Manner in 7»M oh tha defoad-
ant*« eerranto eontroll<?d Xiim iti»T«>«nt and sp««d of %im train.
In our opinion thnt r^iaooalng eannot b« applied to th« in-
etruotion abeva raf&rr<^d,to, in th*^ oata at ^ar tha plaintiff
ohargad spaeifisally that t}i«) d«f<9ndant had h««n nogIic«at in
permitting th«> )»9y wit a thi» bundle to «nt«^ r tm cMur un<l«r tha
eireuBRt^jxeaa and aloe in opt»ratiag th«t oar ao a« to oausa it
to raalca a Tiolant jolt or jerk. In thu' light of theae two
charges of ne«$llgenoa and with all thc» evidenoe that was before
them on these ehargaa, w« fail to a«« how th« jury oeald poee-
ibly haT^ been nieladlv by th^ infttruotion ref furred t«, lata
ItalieTing that they oouid ar aheuld return a werdiot for the
defendant, eren though they ttight belieT«« fro^ the evid<*noe that
th« def«nadajat had admitted the bay with a large btindXa, Into the
ear, as testified to by th*» plaintiff** wittt'^ess^St an« that it
aauBunted to negligenoe, undt^r th^ oirotuaetanaee, to aa ae* ISrea
in the reetriotad interpretation of the InBtruotioa eontended
for V th*.» plalntif 'i the instruction ooydd Viardly b© oenoidered
revel'eible error, far erea in the firet eount, the fetot that
tha boy wae thrown acainat the plaintiff, was ahargeU to be
•on aeaoiint of the i»aTement or Jolting of e?*id ear."
Tha plalnt4ir also ooaplaina of aao uh^^r instruction
glTftn to th« iVLTjn » In which the oourt. tQX4 th«i t^at if th«/
)MiIieT«¥d thet injury to Ute plaintiff was th« r<Hiult of a a9r9
«ooid«nt which ©ocwrired witrxout the neglig«no« of the defendants,
as ohorged i» the doolarrAtlon or eithe^r oeuat the eof, thf!y
aheuld r^^turn a irerdict for the d<»f ^nd-inte. that inatruoilen
vaa «ntireXjr j^rop^r. If th« iiioident in quAation oodurr^d
without th« nagligeaee of th* d^f0fiid?>.nXn » ao charged, it waa
a H«r« a0oid«<-nt, Xt w;^« either one or th« othctr, und«r th«
OTid«neo«
The «ourt gav« the Jury a further inetruotien atf>
feXXowo:
**Zt ie not Buffiei«nt to «»titXt» %im pXaia*
tiff to reooTer in this oaeo to show a nagXigent
iMrtpmoh of duty on ih^ part p1' the def«nil«nt*, if
any. feut it deToiTea up n th« plointif to 8/io« fur-
ther that Buc^x hreaoh of duty wae th« proximate or
in^^diate eaiuoo of the injury to th<» pXaintiff; that
in no oaee ean a reoovery t^e hini for a negXigont
br^^oh of duty, unXf^ss the evidenoa ehevef that ouch
a^Xigent hreaoh of duty was the ]^roxinate or inewed-
iato oa«fi« of th^ injusy eo cur ring."
Xho plaintiff a<nnt«"niis that iaasaiteh a« this waa
a pwroi^texy iastrtiotioa, the giTiag ef it eheuld he heXd
rrTersiVXe error hi^oauae it annoanoe4 a ruXe which ie not the
Xaw, na»eXy« that ther-- oan be no r<^eovery uaXenti^ the negXi-
ganoe o^nplained of waa tixe '*lnnediato" cause of the injury,
pXaintiff'e argument heisg that th<" word "or" appearing in
the inetruotion after the word "proxiMnte" ouet he eoneidert*
•4 aa OQuiTaXeat to the phras«, "that i« to day", '^h^ de-
fendant eontends on the other hand, that the word *or" nay,
with good reason, te read in ite aXtemative senee. If the
iaatmotioa told the Jury pX»inXy that the pXaintiff oould
not reeoTor unX^se they heXiered frca the enden^ie that the
ii«glis«nee cN>Bplaut«d o >: %a» th» lMi«4liat«r eftufic of the Injury «
aiKi thus announced wi •r2*otteoa» rul« wbleh i« not th« I»v, the
InstruQUen. b«liic |»«r«a«9tor]r« eould not ^e ouroA Iqr th« giTlBff
of aaol.hr one amo (itei»c the oerr4»ot rul«. But If Use X«Rg*
uago ttoftd in Ihff InstrtMtiien as giToa» m&y b« said to yoaooos
ooiio oabiguitjr, olNm though it i<s « poronptorjr iftetruotion*
wo nny look to iho otJ'^r iaotruotxons given to ooe if. in
viftv of Lh«si« thii» Juzy Wf>r probably nlelod bjr th«f inetruetioB
eoa^lalBOd of into adopting a ruX^ vMcdi ie not ih<? lav.
national ^SsamimXinE go. v . .acilorklo . 819 ill. 557, 561; ':i;himti»
Cit:y Ity. Co. ▼. Mci)03f>oui;;h. 221 111. 69, 75. in another instruo-
tion, tho Jury v^r^ ^xpr«»ely told that if the> f o ;nd from
th» OTid^^Boo that thr defendants n«^lig«ntly permittad a par*
oen to rido within thf^ oar and near to the plaintiff, «nd whoa
aaid paroen wao holding upon hie ohouldore a largo bundla aa
that whiio plaintiff wgso in tha axercise of du« cerei oaid
yoreoB, with tht* bundla, on aoo&unt of the rooTamant and Jolt-
iog of thtt mw, and fey r aaon of thf» bundle, lost hi« b»lanoa
and «aa thromi against tha plaintiff, oauaing h<»r to bo in-
jured, they ohould find the defendant* 8 guiltjr. The court
alaa i^va the Jury a aiailar inotruction inTolTing the nagli*
gonee olwrcod in th«^ oeoond count of thi^ declaration. In Tiew
of thooa instruotioaa ve fail to aao hev the Juxy ooxld haTO
oonotrued the iaotruotion to mean, aa plaintiff oontendo, that
•r9n though they found that the defendants did permit th*> boy
to enter and ride in the o^ir witii the heaty bundle on hia
ohauldar, aad that under all the cirouiMtanoee that vaa nogli«
ganaa, atill thay aould not return a Terdiet for the plaintiff
baoaaaa the **im«dlata* oauaa of her injury wa« not the nagli*
genoa of the defdadaaU, in pormlttiag the bay with the haaiy
bundle to board and rida in the oar uader the oiro«aaot»i«««.
«^
• !»•
Init van rftih«r the t»Q% th»t %im Imjt !•«% him bslAao* «»i
two f«jrtia»r iaftiruotionsi which «rer« «• foXl»w»t
•
*Oneffi«cl« «f imjp««eMn^ «i «itn«S0 ie ^y showing
thet %)3» wlt>ii««0 )i«e m^^ <liff»rent »ji3<l ai'ntradlotory
stetAincnts OB « eftaitri&l point, on foster odoaeiens*
If it (appears frcm th# «ri4*nce in thlf Qase that »ny
«itn@»ie h«0 bc^n iiBp«a<sk«(i In tMs iaiaiBi«r, /ou hQV«
ft ri«.;nt t« take iaio eonisid<= r«)Uen 9U^ i«t»«selsa«nt
in dei«rminii9tg th« value, of %be tt^s^tltBony ef «?uch
witaeeft or wit]i«fts?<%« in oenn^ ati<»n «i Ui «i. the' etiwx
faetB and oircii«uitan«'^B ia evi^iRncft*^,
^Whila jreu are tli« Judi^^e of Ut« dr#tfi1illitar
0f th« i¥i tjsiaases , /eu knve no right to ditr^ard th«
tentimony of »ny ii.nim|)ee»oh#4 -svi &nrs& Kwom ®a bahalf
of th«» diefentif>>»'3 1«, siojply 'becftuipf' ruo:i >?itn««» wa*
©r im an «:*pley« ef the d.«f«n<l-anti!!, tjut it is ^■our
t^uty to r<- c**iYe th» twstliaony of sucn witn««ij ia tha
iit:ftt of all th** ^vid*nce, th» nmxm an yoti would re-
Qffifa the t^fstimony of arv ©tH«>r witn^^os, «nci to site*
tereslntt Xhf> «r»4il«iiity »f sadrs ev/pieya ^y th«» owaa
]^rineipilae an^ taftts Hy wbich yo . dertarmina the eratfl*
bility af any otliar wltnesB,"
IKila the Xfi'i^ua^tt ea t]hu@ uis«$a, taaka^ an arroo-
eoufi usa of ta« aord '*iiSj^eROiiad"« it iSe^s 3orr«<3itly t«)il
tha jmry tha aff act whish tiia^- fmr^ tha rlf^ht to siv« •aif-
farant and <»}iitra<iiotory statarae/ita". tm.^e l»y a vitneoa *on
a aatarial point on fomar aceaaiona*. fh^re w^e no inqpro*
priaty in tha (itrlng; of tha inBtruotlan aa laat sjuated ahoTa.
far tha r«aaoaa giT«B« ihK» jtiagm«it af the Cirauit
Oaurt ie affixmad*
mfmeok
XAILQH, f.J. an4 QkQ^rmor, J. Oonour.
1911 • SMS2
h. B, SlA'SU,
\ Plaintiff in lSrro#,
JERKOR TO
WmiQli'AL OOMirtC
JUL2U8 BAQKR PIAIK} CCMl^Ainp ) GV OIUCAQO,
a oorporfttion, |
219 I.A. 657
MR. JVStlC^^imiSm d«IiT«r«d th« opinion of the
eourt.
7h« plaintiff, S^dth, ¥roaglat thie stotion in the
Suniei al Ciourt, of Ohleago, baaed upon an alleged implied
oontraet for sienay had and r^oeiTed TsQr the defendant for
the uoa of the plaintiff. A hearing was had before the
oourt vitliout a jury, reeultiag in a finding against the
plaintiff and Judcmoat for oeste entered for the defendant*
to r^rtrmte which plaintiff hao eued out thio writ of error.
The plaintifi eatt^lo/ed the defendant to tune and re*
yalr a piano, vhieh wae earted to their plaoe of buoineeo
for that piurpooo. the piime r<mained witn defendant for
•OTeral jrearo. ii'laintif f deeorihed nit» buoinees aa trad*
ing "herees, -nra^no and attyUiing else,* including pianos.
The Yieevpresident of the defendant company testified that
at the time the plaintiff arranged fer the repair of the
piaao ho told the witness he waateu the defendant to sell
it for him; that on one or two eecaoions be hreught por-
Bone to look at it but did not sell it; that, he told the
plaintiff the^ would ehaztse him ^l.SO a month for storage
and he replied, "make it a« light as you oan*; that thw
-2.
plaintiff n«T«r ••ked the def«mdant to r«turi} th« piwM
to him. ¥h« 1»r«Mnur«r of th« defendAitt testified that aftar
th« piano had b«en at th«ir plaeo of buoinoat for •ema tiac,
the plaitttif r aakad hi« to sell it for hin as soon as he
^uld; that he told the piaintiff that it woul4 19« a diffi*
oult naatter as the piase had been etamtiag so long it had
lest its toBo; that tho plaintiff said, *4o the ^>ost you
eaa, I vill leaTO it to you*; that it was finally sold for
$99 vhioh the witness considered a fair priao; that when
the witness told the plaintiff ef the sale he was dissatis*
fled and said he would sue defendant for #50« After the
sale the defendant sent the plaintiff a hill in whloh he
was charged #96 for aterage at #1.50 9«r aonth, #5 for tuning
and polishing Mid |d»50 for eartage, aaking a total of
|107,60, and oredited with #95, the amount realised freai
the enle of the piano, leaving a l^lanee due defendant
amounting to |12.50« The plaintiff testified that he nerer
authorisod the defendant to atll the piano. Ws also tefiti*
fled that at the time it was sold, its fair loarlcet value
was lE'leo.
So brief has been filed in this eourt liy the defon4»
ant. Tho plaintiff contends that he did net leam of the sal»
of the piano until after it had been sold and thai the defend-
ant did net taake a proper effort to leeato hia and adriso
hin of the intention to sell it. Th« plaintiff had never
left hie address wit>i the defendant and after the sale, the
defendant looated the plaintiff through his sieter and sent
him the bill referred to»
The evidenoe was eenflicting and wo eanaot aay thst
the trial eourt was not Justified in oondluding that the
l'
d«fenaant did propnrly in selling th« j^ita^ , under the elr*
•mstaaoet, to vvhlcth v« kiaT* referred. The pl&intiff*e only
oontentioa in thie oouft »«Maa to be that Iqr its oharter*
a oertified eepssr of nl^ileh imo Introdueed in OTldenee. the
defendtint mo Inoorp&rated for the o1»Joot of "the nanufaoture
and dealing in all klndo of pianoo* orsane and other BtueioaX
inotruBientBt** and that it «ao therefore net eapovered to
"eotablioh and operato a atorago warohouoe bueiaeeo,* and
tlurreforo it had no povor to make a storage ehargo against
the plaintiff.
Xt oaeno quite dear that in pemittiag plaintiff *b
piano to ronain at its plaee of bueineos for the purpose
of sale or trado* the defendant cannot he said to hare ea»
gaged in a storage warehouso hueinesg, the pialM haring
OMie into its peooaaeion for tuning and repairing under an
eatress agreement with the plaintiff, which he doee not deny.
It was entireij vitbin the defendant* o oharter powers to
extond this serTiM to the plaintiff and to Make a reasonaUo
ehargo therefor.
Ve find no error in the reeord and thf^refore tho
jud^eut of the Muaic4pal Ciourt is affiXtted.
TAYLOR, P.J. ASB 0»CCW»OK, J, COICHm,
S14 A 8&470
fHOUAS J. aoo^Hs.
Appellee,
coc?; couNiy.
219I.A. 657
MH. JUSTICS^ THCMSOV d«liv«red the opinion ftf
the oourt,
fh« pXftintif f| Miurtha CeeltirKSft, Ibrouglit this
•uit tti^inst thMt defendant on a prdmiesory note for
#170, 'Xhe issues were tried Inefere the court without
a jury, resulting in a finding and judgment for the
plaintiff for $226«72, from which Ihp defendant has
appealed.
The defendant gare his pronissery note te his
aunt, Catherine SaTlia, and made oertain pajnaents on it,
She died learlng a will i»tking the plaintiff her residu*
axy le@stee and thus the latter aoquired the note. The
plaintiff testified she afterwards saw the defen^nt and
it was agreed that #170 renained due on the l>aylin note,
whereupon the defendant gare her the note new sued upen
and she surrendered the Iiavlin note; that she reeeired
eoTeral annual interest payments on the new note ^t
nothing hoyend that.
The def«adant testified that he had aoTor r'^eeired
the XttTlin note, «te my knowledge*. The faet that the
4«f«ndaRt hM glTftis tbe plaintiff th« not* sued vpea vac
»ot eontroTert*d Vut tha dcifen<i!!tiit testified that aftar
ha gaT« the plaintiff that note, ha Xaaraad that tha ol4
aite had hmtn oaneelled and that If ha had kaoatt thie at
the tlaa, he n«r«T aoold have glTen the plaintiff the atw
B*ta. Xa our aplalon, the fact that tha SaTlia nate wma
returned ta the defendant upon the glTlac 9f the note
euad upon* adHlta of na dauht. It tro^ild be azeeedinKljr
•txmsg* if the partiae would gat tegathar and affrae apaa
tha aaount remaining due en the old note and then the da-
fmdaat give tha plaintiff a new note far that amount with •
aut taking v^ the old one. ¥ha r^'aX lasaa af faet InTolTed
in, whether tha aid iwta va» oonaelled or forglraa by Mra«
JOaTlin* as the defaadaat elaima. The plaintiff, wha ««a
the defendant* a ^uain, testified that it waa net. thf*
defendant* s sister, a Mr*. Bamn, testified that in the
plaintiff* s presenoe, Mrs. SaTlin had aaid, <*that she did
aat vaat fan's note eoUeeted nar any lav suit oTer it.**
Xra. i^an and the plaintiff v(»ra not on good tama. The
plaintiff testified t^at ah» heard a oonreraation hetvaan
Vra. SaTlia and Mra. Bya&; that she hear* na tMng ahaut a
suit; that she haard Mrs, iSaYlin aay she would nat aurraadar
the nate and that she aaid nothing alMut tha nata haing e«n»
celled* in this state af tiif r<<«oerd« we eannat s^ that
the oeurt*s finding was sgainst the aianifeat weight of tha
aridenoa.
Ska eourt adudtted in eTidenoe, the «»ili, the iSTaBi*
toyy and the final report in oonnf>otion vrith the prohats
af iirs. DaTlia^a aatate, and the defendant contends this waa
9tT^v, In aur apinion sudti a-fidenee was eonpetent en tha
issues inTolTed, i^lrtheraere, whan the attorn^ for the
•1*
plaintiff vff re4 th« first 4omBi«nt« whidii wbm ilie iiH
▼entory, the attera«gr for th« 4«f*n4«iit eH^eeted ■ajrliig»
«Z think the vhol« file 0U(Sht to go In," Therefore the
defendant eouldMot uxi« the point a»v oTon if the otI*
4mi<w were inetuiq^etent.
Vlnally the defendant eenteade that the eeurt
•rred in Inoluding interest inasBuah ao the note did
a* t mention interest nor did the plalntiff*s deeXairatlon
allege that defendant «&e XiaU* for Interest • The
eontentlon is without aerit. ^he note ealls for $170,
*at tlie rate of five per o<nit per anntus*" The verds oaa
r^fer to nothing Vat interest. Balden r. Innes . 24 111.
38^: tMW^^^P^ ▼• ^PMMtla^. 60 III. 910.
«e find no error in the reeord aad therefsre
the jud6xa«)t of the Cou^^ty v^urt is affimed.
jkmmss*
TtAYhQR, P, J. ASfH O'COmeK, J. CUEIQU«,
y
223 • 2M79
A. BG£.fSiAl, / )
/ )
\
\ App«lle«f / )
\^ / ) APP?i;AL FRCil
▼\ / ) MinriciPAJu xuRi
XMIRY MOTOR \^TEXt kmiUSt,
% aorporfttlon» /
OF ClUOAGC.
\App«liant. , ^ w --
^ 219I.A. 657
THK Cafif,
By this aotion, th» plaintiff, HoltssMUi, sought to
reooTer for dauaac* oau£«(i to his atttoaebilc in a ^llieioa
with a ear boloagiag to defendant, which oolXisiea was
alleged to he due to the negligent driTin^ of defendant's
mployse. The causs was tried hy the eourt without a 4uxy»
resulting in a finding for plaintiff and Judgnent was enter-
ed in hie fawor for #150 and (Mets, from which the defend^
ant has appealed.
The only point urged hy def«mlttiit in support of its
appeal is th^^ contention that the finding of th« oourt was
against t^ aanifeet weight of the eridenee, end that it
shewed that the plaintiff's wife, who wae driving his oar
at the tlBS of the •sourrenoe in question, was the eaast
of the aeeident.
T1i« plaintiff's wife was driTing a light roadster,
south in Wahash areaue in the City of Chicago. She testi-
fied that as she approached 28th street, which rune east
and wsst and intersects WalMUih aTsnue at right angles, she
was en the right hand side cf the street; that th^^re was a
>.^
¥ig ftutottoMI* trttek mhm&i of her; that sh« brought h«r
omr Ut a stop Just north •f tHe 28 tH street erosswaXk;
that she sew defendant's car, « hi eh was a large limousine,
MMsiog west in 38th street about 95 miles an hour; that
she first noticed this oar when it was **ahout fotur feet"
east of WsYiash arenue; that she oatae to a stop because,
*I saw I iwuld not make it*. She further testified that
the big truek went right ahead and the defenclant*8 ear,
in orossiag Wabash avenue, swerred to the north (apparent*
ly areund the rear of the truek) and hit her car, turning
it around to the west. The daaage to plaintiff's ear was
•n the left front side,* the left front fender was broken
and alee the left front wheel «• the radiater was soM^shed
and the left head lights wer@ broken off.
One Marsh, a bey fourteen years old, testified for
the plaintiff, that he was stsjading in the deoansay of a
grooary store en the northsftst eomer of 28th street and
Vabash arenas; that Mrs. Holtnnan ftae on the right hand
side of the street and etepped as she get to the corner;
that defendant's oar eaae froaa the east and "turned off
•f 88th street and went up intc Wabash avenue to hit her*;
that she had stopped about five feet fron the <»mer,-
•She was right down by the comer where the people eross";
that defendant's ear was going west in 23th street about
four feet from the eurb and did not turn north in Vabash
avenue but went etraight across and struek plaintiff's oar*
which, after the colli si on was headed west on 28th street
•bout t«e feet west of Wabash arraiiit.
One Foster, who also testified for the plaintiff,
was standing on the southeast corner ef the intersection
in qii«Btioii, Be saw defendant's ear ooaiiag **pr«tt]r «le«,«
it «»« not g«itts fast,* and waited tttr it to pase, ao he
vaa erosning SSth street to the north* He did not sae
plaintiff's oar until after th« eolllsion. He testified
tlut there vas a "bts ash wagon going south on Vabash aremui
and that it was at t'm in terse otion,* *not quite to the
oozTier"; that the pari of defendant's m.r that oame in aoB«
taot with plaintiff's oar vas the ^*ek fonder on ths right
hand side,
(hio Saith, ealled as a witeoas )qr the defendant*
testified that he wae driving the ash vagon that was re*
forred to; that ha was en the north side of 38th street|
on the wost side of Wahash avenue; that plaintiff's wife
oeuld not get between hia and the enr'b »xk4 had to pull out
to the left; timt *'she drove ri^ht into this tazioab,*
tlia angine went d«ad»« she did x^t put on har brakas or
anything e » » ahe strudk the other ear on the right wheel •-
on the fendOr,« « • * the hig hlack liaousine was going
about twenty miles per hour»« the lady was going not nore
than twentyfiTO miles per hour, I think * » » The front
•f the lady's ear went right into him,- she hit him hetvMn
the front and rear wheel, right in the oenter,- hit the
fender ♦ ♦ ♦ ehe was on tb® north side of 28th street » * ♦
X was stoppad near the curb stone on the no rth side of
Sdth stroet."
The reoord oontaine a phatagranii ahewing the right
side af defendant's oar a» it appeared after the aooid'^^nt.
This photograph shows the rear fend@r erumpled up, where
it earros ower in front of the rear wheel and is attaohod
to the stop or running beard on the side of the ^ir. The
•4.
ear does Be. hacr* this app<«r&Ree oti« would •sqpeet it t«
Imre If plaintiff** mir rmn LnU> it, head on, vhil« going
t««aty«fiTC aU.le» an ii^ur* aa the vltaass Saitk 4«8eribad
this a eel d eat. Tka witnaaa Harsh mas recall ad )Qr the court
and testified that ^«re were e^er Tahiolea on tha Btra«t,
h» s&id there w«;re tvo trueks at the eem«r»* *thigr v«re
frttit tracks eoaiB£ from do«» temn, going south on Vateah
av«n«a«* th<»r« ««tr« thrae Ta>iiel«e on wateah* gains twiitlu*
In this stefc of the i-^eerd «« eamiot say that ttas
finding for the plaintiff was ^^ainst the autnifest weight
•f ^c CTldenee. the testlatoi^ of plaintiff *s sitsassas
is not entirelx without <»ntradi otion. Outside of the two
ears inrolTed In the <»lli8lon, Foster noticed only the
ash wagon» wMoh is not nmtatoral. Ee was orossing the
street to the s»>rtht saw defendant's «»7 eoaiag froxa the
east and paosad to lat it ^as before he erossed. Be never
saw plaintiff's «ur before the crash. Hsrsh aentiene the
fruit tmeks* Plaintiff *s wife deserihas a truck Just
ahead of her which proceeded aarose BSth street and says
that defendant's oar ez^ssed Wahash aTonue behind it. ^hen
the erash sane that tmek had passed on to the south and
Foster's attention would be fixed on the vehiele's tlwm 1#-
eated at the inverseetion. In the testiasay of eye witn^ses
to eueh an oeourrenda, nothing is B»re n«tuaal tlaem to hatre
some of thfls destsribe some tilings and o Uiers describe other
tMngs that the first witnesses did oot notice at all.
IProai the description of the daraim^ done by tha
eallision to the plaintiff's car ».nd to the defendant's,
and the appesranee of the latter car as shown by the photo*
graph in oTldence, it would seem clear that the oollision
^■i.
t *^X ^nI SXh^' ^ X^--
ht^peiied la «i« Banner r«l6t«d 'by the plaintiff •« w^itsttsses,
»♦ find n© «rror in th« record and th^r©for« th«
JtMi«pa«nt cf t^ naonieipal ;eiurt ie affiimed.
TAYLCH, J.B. AHD 0«CaiQI<m, 1, 0(S^B*
\
/
General No. 7069. y Agenda No. 1.
April Tern/A. D. 1920.
\ Emner Lee, Defendant in Error,
'f". J. Harfins, Plaintiff in Error.
Error to the Cifcuit Court of Christian County.
/
WAGGONER, ?rJ.
The defendant in error recovered a judgment for
$1290.00, in the circuit court of Christian County against
the plaintiff in error, who has brought the record to this
court, and urges such judgment should be reversed for
the reason that it is against the manifest weight of the
evidence. No other error is presented.
The evidence was conflicting. In reference to sev-
eral vital matters the testimony of the parties was dia-
metrically opposed each to the other. It was the prov-
ince of the jury, under proper instructions given them,
to determine the questions of fact. Their verdict was
approved by the trial judge who saw the witnesses and
heard them testify, and we would not be justified in re-
versing the judgment rendered thereon, and therefore
affirm it.
Judgment affirmed.
4
2191.A. 658
General No. 7126. ^ Ag. 7.
April Term A. D. 1920. i
Frank Hass, administrator of the jSstate of
Bertha Hass, deceased/
Defendant in ErrorJ
vs.
219i.A. 658
Walker D. Hines, Director Ge^'ral of Railroads,
Plaintiff in ei^or.
Error to the Circuit Court of Vermilion County
WAGGONER, P. J.
This is an action on the case brought to recover
damages for the death of Bertha Hass. The jury re-
turned a verdict finding the issues for the defendant in
error, assessing the damages at $5,000.00, and a judgment
was entered on the verdict.
Bertha Hass killed on January 28, 1918, while riding
in a buggy which was struck by a passenger train on the
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company's tracks at
their intersection with Henderson Avenue, in Rossville,
Illinois. The facts and pleadings are substantially the
same in this case as in that of Frank Hass, administra-
tor of the estate of Ernest Hass, deceased, v. Walker D.
Hines, Director General of Railroads, in which an opinion
was filed at the present term of this court. Most of the
questions presented in this case were fully considered in
the last named case, and what was said in such opinion
applies to this case as well.
(Page 1)
It is urged that negligence of Ernest Hass, who was
driving with the consent of his mother, should be charg-
ed to her. The eighth instruction, given at the request
of plaintiff in error, so told the jury and, as there was
nothing contradictory to it in any other instruction, there
can be no error of which complaint can be made. The
complaints made in reference to the admission, and to
the exclusion of evidence, by the court, or to the argu-
ment of counsel are not well taken and not of sufficient
importance to be discussed in detail here. The deceased
was forty-two years of age, in good health and a good
housekeeper. She left a husband, to whom she had been
married twenty-two years, and four children, aged nine-
teen, thirteen, twelve and ten years respectively. The
damages awarded were, under such circumstances, reason-
able and far from being excessive.
The judgment rendered in the circuit court is af-
firmed.
Affirmed.
(Page 2)
I
I
j^i> ^
General Noi 714G / Agenda No. 13
\ April Term A. D. 1S20.
\ /
The People of the State of Illinoii^, Defendant in Error
/
\, vs. /
Williami Evans, Pjfeintiff in Error
/
Error to the County G*5nrt of Sangamon County
WAGGONER, P. J. ./ ^ X ^ '^ ^^ ' ''^ ^
On October 4, 1918, an information was filed in the
county court of Sanj^amon county, Illinois, verified by
George H. Faxon, a deputy sheriff of that county, charg-
ing the plaintiff in error with having unlawfully sold
intoxicating liquor, at different times in the Town of
Capital, while said town was anti-saloon territory.
No jury had been drawn and summoned prior to
the first day of the term of the county court at which
this case was tried. An objection was interposed by Dr.
John A. Wheeler, who is designated as being an inter-
ested party, to the service of a venire in the case either
by the sheriff or coroner of said county, and thereupon
the court ordered that a venire for thirty-six persons
be issued and delivered to John A. Richardson to be by
him served. The venire was served, and when thirty-
six jurors appeared in court plaintiff in error interposed
a challenge to the array of jurors, and the challenge
was by the court denied. A motion was then made by
Page 1
plaintiff in error for a change of venue on account of
prejudice of the presiding judge. The motion was over-
ruled. Afterwards a jury was selected from the jurors
summoned, a trial had, a verdict returned finding plain-
tiff in error guilty, and a judgment was rendered on
such verdict from which judgment this writ of error is
prosecuted.
In the case of People v. Mankus, 292 111. 435, an in-
formation was filed in the county court of Sangamon
County and, the same proceedings were had in that
case in regard to obtaining a jury and the same ques-
tions presented in reference thereto as are now pres-
ented in this case. In reviewing the Mankus case the
Supreme Court said: "Section 110 of the statute relat-
ing to juries for the law terms of county courts (Hurd's
Stat. 1917, p. 878,) provides in the first clause that "un-
less the court shall otherwise order," the jury shall be
drawn and summoned in the same manner provided for
drawing and summoning juries for the circuit court.
When a jury is not summoned in that manner it Is the
duty of the court, on the first day of the term, to call
all cases on the docket and ascertain whether a jury will
be required. If one is demanded by any party to a suit
or the State's attorney in any criminal case, the court
shall set such case or cases for trial and direct the clerk
to issue a venire for twelve competent jurors and deliver
the same to the sheriff or coroner, who shall summon
such jurors from
Page 2
the body of the county. In case the
sheriff, coroner or bailiff be intersted in any jury case
pending, or in case anybody interested, or any attorney,
objects to the sheriff, coroner or bailiff summoning the
jury, if the court thinks the objection reasonable he
shall appoint an impartial bailiff to summon the jury.
It is undeniable that the statute was not followed in
summoning the jury. Under the statute the jury is to
be drawn and summoned in the same manner as juries
in the circuit court unless the court otherwise orders.
The countv court is given authority to order the jury
drawn and summoned in the same manner juries are
drawn and summoned in circuit courts, but if the court
does not so order it has authority to "otherwise order
a jurj'." The common law powers of courts to provide
juries is subordinate to the methods expressly provided
by statute, and where there is such a statute it is not
to be departed from but must be substantially complied
with. (Healy v. People, 177 111. 306.) While it has
been often held such statutes are directory, that a sub-
stantial compliance with their requirements is sufficient
and that a mere irregularity will not be fatal, that is
only so where an attempt has been made to follow the
statute and there has been some irregularity in doing
so. Murphy v. People, 37 111. 447; WiUielm v. People,
72 id. 468: Mapes v. People, 69 id. 523; Siebert v. Peo-
ple, 143 id. 571 are tj^pical cases where it was held a
mere irreovilarity in providing a jury will not render it
invalid. Here
Page 3
no attempt was made to get a jury by
either of the methods provided by section 110, but the
jury v/as drawn and summoned in a manner not men-
tioned or referred to by the statute. * * * Courts
have been very liberal in excusing mere irregularities
where an attempt has been made to comply with the
law in providing juries, but they cannot hold valid and
legal a jury where no attempt has been made to select
it in accordance with the requirments of the statute."
No error was committed in denying the motion for
a change of venue, but the challenge of the array of
jurors should have been sustained.
The judgment of the county court is reversed and
this cause remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.
Page 4
'\
\
Agenda No. 30.
General No. 7165.
April Term, A.
.\ Harry J. Clark, Appellee,
Walker D\Hines, Directo/ General of Railroads,
\ Appealant.
^191.A. 658
Appeal from t^ Circu^ Court of Morgan County.
WAGGONER, P. J. -^
On September 8, 1919, appellee shipped a car load of
hogs weighing about twenty thousand pounds over the
Chicago & Alton Railroad from Jacksonville, Illinois, to
the Union Stock Yards at Chicago. The train upon
which the stock was shipped was an extra stock train,
operated by train orders without time card rights, that
started at Roodhouse, Illinois, on Monday and Wednesday
of each week for the purpose of carrying livestock to the
Chicago market. It usually reached its destination be-
tween five and seven o'clock A. M. On the day in ques-
tion the train left Jacksonville about eleven o'clock A.
M. and arrived at the Union Stock Yards at twenty
minutes of eleven the next morning. The train was
made up of dead freight when it left Roodhouse, but
en route cars containing such freight were set out and
cars of life stock substituted so that at Bloomington it
consisted of about the same number of cars, but most
of them contained live stock. The evidence showed
that the usual and customary time for the arrival of
this train at Brighton Park,
Page 1
a station within two or
two and a half miles of the stockyards chutes, to be be^
tween four and seven o'clock A. M., and it arrived there
at 6:15 or 6:30 A. M., so that a little more than four
hours elapsed between that time and the time the train
was at the place to deliver the stock.
The court properly admitted evidence offered by
appellant for the purpose of accounting for all delays,
complained of by appellee, between Jacksonville and
Brighton Park but erroneously refused to admit evi-
dence offered for the same purpose from the latter
place to the Union Stock Yards, and thereby deprived
appellant of a part of his defense.
The shipment was made under a contract which
provides that the carrier does not agree to deliver the
stock at destination at any specified time nor for any
particular market!, but the law requires the carrier to
use reasonable diligence to transport such stock within
a reasonable time. Whether or not appellant used rea-
sonable diligence in transporting the stock was a ques-
tion of fact to be determined by the jury, from all the
facts and circumstanes, under proper instructions as to
the law.
If it should be assumed that there was a delay in
the transportation of the stock, "mere delay is not
sufficient to create liability. To create liability, the de-
lay must result from some
Page 2
negligence or want of
diligence on the part of the carrier. It must be an un-
reasonable delay under all the circumstances of the par-
ticular case." (St. Louis Merchants Bridge Terminal
Ry. Co. V. Tassey, 122 111. App. 339). In order for the
jury to determine whether or not the delay in getting
from Brighton Park to the Union Stock Cards was un-
reasonable or the result of some negligence or want of
diligence on the part of appellant, they should have been
permitted to have heard all competent evidence, offered
by appellant, as to the reason for such delay. The evi-
dence showed that the train canying the stock was a
little more than four hours in going two or two and one-
half miles without any explanation on the part of ap-
pellant whose evidence offered for that purpose was ex-
cluded.
The court, on behalf of appellee, instructed the
jury that "as a matter of law, that if live stock is plac-
ed with a common carrier for transportation, and the
same is not delivered in the usual and customary time;
or in accordance with schedule time of the railroad
company, if such schedule time is shown by the evi-
dence, the presumption is that such delay in delivery,
was occasioned by the fault and negligence of such car-
rier, and the burden of proof is on the carrier to show
that such failure of delivery, if any, was occasioned
from causes for which the carrier was not responsible."
The jury were told, by this instruction, that if the
stock
Page 3
was not delivered in the usual and customary
time * * * the burden of proof was on appellant to
show that such failure of delivei-y was occasioned by
causes for which he was not responsible, and appellant
was not permitted to make the proof required of him
under it. In addition to that, the court refused to give
an instruction, offered by appellant, telling the jury,
"that although you may believe from the evidence that
a longer time w^as consumed in carrying the car of
hogs in question from Jacksonville to its destination in
Chicago, than was usual and customary for like ship-
ments, yet if you also believe from the evidence that
said delay was brought about through no fault of the
defendant Director General but the same was without
negligence on his part, you cannot hold said Director
General liable for any loss or damage to plaintiff's hogs
as a result of such delay."
To have given this instruction would have availed
appellant nothing under the evidence, but it correctly
states the law (St. Louis Merchants Bridge Terminal
Railway Co. v. Tassey, 122 111. App. 339; Bacon v. C. C.
C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 155 IlL App. 40), and if competent
evidence had not been excluded and this instruction had
been given, the result of the trial might have been a
verdict in his behalf.
There is no evidence that the train had a schedule
time, but the uncontradicted evidence is to the contrary,
and no instruc-
Page 4
tion should have been given based
on the assumption tihat it did have, as was done in ap-
pellee's second and fifth instructions. In the latter in-
struction the assumption is that "the schedule time for
the arrival of the car (containing the hogs) would be
the following day at Chicago Stock Yards, in time for
hogs to fill and be on the early market." There is no
requirement of law that the hogs should be delivered in
time to be fed and watered before the market opens.
This instruction also makes appellant liable if the jury
believes from the evidence that the hogs were negli-
gently reduced in weight', notwithstanding the record
contains no evidence of any reduction of weight. Nei-
ther of these two instructions of appellee should have
been given.
Appellant's brief does not contain a single reference
to the abstract. We would be justified in affirming the
judgment pro forma, but have considered the case and
reverse the judguent of the trial court, for the errors
above indicated, and remand the cause.
Reversed and Remanded.
Page 5
i
General No. 7169 / Agenda No. 34
\ April Term A. D. J920
% /
^ W. H. Schramm, Appellee
W. D. Hines, Director Ge^ral of Railroads, Appellant
Appeal from the Cycuit Court of Ford County
WAGGONER, P. J-'^
This is an action bi ought by appellee to recover
for damages done his automobile by reason of its hav-
ing been struck by an east bound train of the Toledo,
Peoria & Western Railroad Company on a crossing at
Sixth street, in Fairbury, Illinois.
The declaration charges appellant with negligence
in operating its train; with failure, to give the statutory
signals when approaching the crossing, and with permit-
ting buildings, a tree and box cars to stand on the right
of way, and running a train knowing such buildings, tree
and box cars obstructed the view of persons approach-
ing such crossing.
It is conceded that no buildings were on the right
of way and the jury were so instructed.
On the day of the accident, appellee, together with
Gotfrey Weibel and Andrew Steidinger, drove from
Forrest west to Fairbury in appellee's automobile. These
towns are six rniles apart. The
Page 1
• railroad passes through
both of them and for five miles its track and the road
over which appellee drove run parallel. A passing train
could be seen from any point along that portion of the
wagon road. Appellee undoubtedly knew that no train
had gone east from Fairbury while he was going west
to that place.
After getting to Fairbury appellee turned from Lo-
cust street south, on Sixth street, a block from the place
where the accident occurred. The evidence shows that
a person standing on Sixth street at a point one hund-
red and twenty-two feet south from Locust street can
see west along the railroad track three hundred feet
and can see one hundred and fifty feet of the track, and
that at a point twenty-nine feet north from the place
where the accident occurred can see three hundred feet
west up the track. The train in question was due at
Fairbury at 9:16 A. M. and was about twenty minutes
late. The railroad station is two and a half blocks west
.65ft
from Sixth street. The train was to stop at a water
t-ank nine liundred feet east from the Sixth street cross-
ing, and at the time of the accident was running from
eight to ten miles an hour. Appellee, who formerly
was a fireman on the Lake Erie & Western Railroad,
testified that as he approached the crossing he talked
with the men that were in the car with him about it,
and said it was a dangerous crossing, that one of them
looked at this v/atch and said that the
Page 2
train had gone; that
he was driving along looking ahead, paying attention to
the running of his car, and when he got to the track
glanced up and saw the train not over seventy feet from
him; that he pressed down the clutch, threw off the
spark, put the emergency on in full force, and killed
the engine while his car was on the main track. He had
owned the car twelve or fourteen days, had driven it
about one hundred and fifty miles, and had owned no
other car. It is evident that by reason of his lack of
experience in running a car he was giving it attention
to the exclusion of proper attention to the approaching
train and as a result an accident happened which could
have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care on
his part. The three men jumped from the car. One
of them ran around behind it, while it was standing on
the crossing, and tried to push it off but could not do so
on account of the brakes being set.
Appellee testified that the bell on the engine was
not ringing until after the car was struck when the bell
rang continually. His idea seems to be that one of the
enginemen started the bell to ringing after the acci-
dent. He says nothing in reference to whether or not
the whistle was sounded. Gotfrey Weibel, called by ap-
pellee tiestified that he did not hear the bell or whistle
until the train was within a rod or so from the car; that
he heard the bell ringing and the whistle sound about
the same time. Andrew Steidinger testi
Page 3
fied that he
heard neither whistle or bell at any time. Appellant
showed by trainmen, passengers and a resident of Fair-
bury, who was standing at the Seventh street crossing
and saw the accident, that the whistle was sounded for
the street crossing one block west of Sixth street and
that the bell was ringing for some distance before the
train reached the place of accident.
In order to recover in this case, it was incumbent
upon appellee to establish either that he himself was in
the exercise of due care, or that the collision was in no
degree attributable to a want of proper care on his part.
(Blanchai'd v. Lake Shore & Jlichigan Southern Ry. Co.
126 111. 416). The driver of an automobile must use
reasonable care in crossing railroads tracks to avoid col-
lision with trains, and a failure so to do is such negli-
gence as will preclude a recovery for damages sustained
in a collision. (22 Ruling Case Law pg. 246.)
We find, as ultimate facts, from the record in this
case, that appellee was not in the exercise of ordinary
care at the time and place of the accident, and that
negligence, on his part, and such lack of ordinary care
contributed to the collision which resulted in the dama-
ges complained of and for that reason he is not entitled
to recover.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
Reversed with a finding of facts.
Page 4
General No. 71JI6
\ April Term, A. D. 1
J. C. Utter, for the use of Emmj^ Brown, Appellant
J. Will Snyder, Executor of ^le last will and testa-
ment of Cornelia H. JacorTjs, deceased. Appellee
Appeal from Circuit /Court of Edgar County.
WAGGONER. P. J. / 2 1 9 I .A« 6 5 9
On December 14, 1916, Emma Brown recovered a
judgment in the circuit court of Edgar county for
$2300.00 againstt J, C. Utter, who at that time was also
indebted to Edgar County National Bank, William S.
Logan and Cornelia H. Jacobs but was not indebted to
Frank F. Hager. Immediately after the renditon of
the judgment in favor of Emma Brown, J. C. Utter had
each of his three remaining creditors take a judgment,
by confession, against him on notes held by them. The
judgment of Edgar County National Bank was for
$939.06. An execution was issued on the judgment of
Emma Brown, placed in the hands of the sheriff of Ed-
gar county, and by him returned "no property found."
The judgments of William S. Logan and Cornelia H.
Jacobs were paid. Cornelia H. Jacobs, a sister of J. C.
Utter, died leaving a will in which he was named as a
residuary legatee, and appellant, J. Will Snyder, nomin-
ated as executor of such will.
• Page 1
Immediately after
the death of his sister, J. C. Utter executed and deliver-
ed to Frank F. Hager the following instrument: "Jan. 4,
1918. For a valuable consideration, the receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, I hereby assign all the
interest which I may have as an heir or legatee of Cor-
nelia Hall Jacobs to Frank F. Hager and authorize him
to receipt for any monies coming to me from said es-
tate. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my seal at Paris, Illinois, the day and date
above written. James C. Utter."
Frank F. Hager died. Appellant instituted this
garnishee proceedings against appellee. Robert N. Par-
rish, as administrator of the estate of Frank F. Hagar.
deceased, and J. C. Utter filed an intervening petition
alleging among other things, an indebtedness of the lat-
ter to Edgar County National Bank for which judgment
had been taken in favor of said bank, for $936.06; thai
on Jan. 4. 1918, Frank F. Hager was the cashier of said
bank; that he died intestate on October 30, 191S, and
said Robert N. Parrish was duly appointed administrat-
or of his estate; that the assignment hereinbefore quot-
ed was made to Frank F. Hagar as collateral security
for the amount owed to Eugai- County National Bank;
that there is now in the hands of appellee $605.82 due
J. C. Utter as a residuary legatee and held by virtue of
an order of final distribution entered in said estate by
the county court, that should be paid to Robert N. Par-
rish, as administrator of the estate of Fi-ank F. Hagar,
deceased.
Page 2
The garnishee answered that he had $605.82 assign-
ed by J. C. Uttier to Frank F. Hager and held in pursu-
ance of an order of distribution entered in the estate of
Cornelia H. Jacobs, deceased. Issue was joined and a
hearing by the court had.
J. C. Utter testified that he made the assignment
to Hager as security for the judgment of the Edgar
County National Bank; that prior to making such as-
signment he had deeded to Hager to secure an indebted-
ness to said bank of $900.00, upon which judginent was
afterwards taken, a ranch in Montana worth $15,000.00
with an incumbrance upon it of $5500.00; that about six
months after the assignment was made Hager deeded
the land back to him.
Emma Brown incurred Utter's ill-will by taking
judgment against him and he said to her attorney and
afterwards told Snyder, the executor of his sister's will,
that she (Emma Brown) would be the last one to get
her money. The evidence shows he wanted to avoid
paying her debt and the making of the assignment was
a shift or device to avoid having his distributive share
of the estate applied to the payment of her debt and
was a fraud on her.
The assignment was absolute on its face and if
really intended as security for a debt might have been
valid as between the parties to it but is fraudulent and
void as to creditors. Best v. Fuller & Fuller Co., 185
111'. 43.
Page 3
J. Will Snyder v/as summoned as a garnishee, not
individually, but as executor of the last will and testa-
ment of Cornelia H. Jacobs, deceased, and judgment
was entered against him individually for $605.82 in fav-
I
or of Robert N. Parrish, administrator of the estate of
Prank F. Hager. Under the evidence no judgment
should have been rendered in favor of such administrat-
or, and especially not a personal judgment against Sny-
der.
For the errors above indicated the judgment is re-
versed and cause remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.
Page 4
Genera! No. 7188.
April Term, A/ D. 1920
Agenda 49
R. L. Gibbs,, Appellee.
I T
William D. J^hl, Appellant
Appeal from the Circuit'Court of Champaign County.
V/AGGONER, F. J. '^^
This suit was instituted before a justice of the
peace and by appeal taken to the circuit court of Cham-
paign county. A transcript was filed in the office of
the clerk of said court on May 22, 1919, and the suit
placed on the docket for the next term of court. The
record shows that on Sept, 29, 1919, the court, without
any motion made by appellee, dismissed the appeal for
want of prosecution, ordered that a writ of procend-
endo be issued, and rendered judgment against appel-
lant for cost in the circuit court. The next day appel-
lant, by his attorney, entered a motion to set aside the
order dismissing the appeal, and the motion was de-
nied.
Sec. 21, Chapter 110 Kurd's Revised Statutes 1917,
provides that "no suit, action or proceeding * * * * shall
be dismissed for want of prosecution at any time except
when such cause shall be actually reached for trial in
its order as set for trial." This cause had not been set
and afterwards reached for trial. The court erred in
dismissing the appeal. The case should have been set
for trial and when reached in its order, if no one appear-
ed for the appellant, on a motion
Page 1
made by appellee, at
that time, to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution
the same could properly have been allowed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Page 2
319I.A.659
2191X65 >
Gen. No. 7201.
Ag. 61.
April Term, A. D.il920.
Frank Meshikis, Appellant
Springfield Consolid^ed Railway Com;
Spellee.
S.I.9I.A. 6 59
Appeal from Circvjft Court of Sangamon County.
WAGGONER, P. J.
Appellant, while npon the running board of an auto-
mobile, was injured by reason of a collision between the
automobile and a street car of appellee, near the inter-
section of Sangamon Avenue and Peoria Road, in the
City of Springfield, Illinois.
The declaration, consisting of one count, charges ap-
pellee with negligence in starting its car at a time when
the automobile was being driven across the tracks in
front of and close to the car. Reliance is had, for a re-
covery in this case, upon one specific charge of negligence
which would have to be supported by the greater weight
of the evidence.
The evidence shows that, at the time of the accident,
the street car was headed northeast; that a tractor was
headed in the opposite direction; that the space between
the street car and the tractor was from seven to ten
feet and that the driver of the automobile attempted to
drive between the:m.
It is the contention of appellant that neither the
street
Page 1
car nor tractor were in motion but both were
standing; that the automobile, going at a rate of four or
five miles an hour, was driven upon the street car track;
that the street car was started, struck the automobile,
injured appellant and threw the automobile against the
tractor.
It is contended by appellee that when the driver of
the automobile went to pass between the street car and
tractor, neither of them were standing but both were in
motion; that the automobile was being driven at a rate
of between fifteen and twenty miles an hour; that the
automobile ran into the tractor and skidded over on to
the street car track; that an approaching street car,
which had not reached the place for it to stop at the in-
tersection of the avenue and street above mentioned,
struck the automobile and th.e injuries complained of
were in that manner inflicted.
The contentions of each of the parties were support-
ed by witnesses called by them respectively and two dif-
ferent accounts given of the way in which the accident
happened. The jury, by their verdict, found appellee not
guilty of negligence and in order so to do must have be-
lieved its witnesses. We cannot say the verdict was
against the weight of the evidence but believe it to be
supported by the evidence. The record is not free from
error but contains none sufficient to justify a reversal of
the judgment and the judgment must,therefore, be af-
firmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Pa«e2
.iitlat -jo.T.icrfi
^i .;
c.-o-^
!0 '
•1.^ ir
General 'No. 7205 Agenda No. 67
\ April Term, A. D. 192C
Aaron \. Larch, administrator offthe estate of
Jar^es R. Larch, deceased/ Appellee
J. A. JudyXand C. J. Tuck#, parrners^aomg
business as Juc^ Wholesale «andy Co., Appellants
Appeal from the.pircuit Q^urt of Macon County.
WAGGONER, P. J.
Appellee brought this action to recover damages
for the death of his son, who was killed by a truck driven
by an employee of appellants on a public street in De-
catur, Illinois, and obtained a judgment for four thous-
and dollai's and cost. The declaration, containing five
counts, charges appellants with willful and wanton neg-
ligence; with negligent and careless operation of the
truck; and with violations of the statute in regard to
speed.
Appellants insist that negligence, on their part, and
due care on the part of those in charge of the decedent
was not established; that if any negligence was proven
it was not the proximate cause of the injury; that there
is no evidence of willful and wanton misconduct, and that
the verdict is manifestly against the weight of the evi-
dence.
Water Street, in Decatur, runs north and south
crossing
• Page 1
Mai'ietta Street at right angles. There is a
street car track on Water Street and Marietta Street has
a car line running west from the west side of Water
Street. The first street north from Marietta Street,
running parallel therewith, is Orchard Street. James
R. Larch was run over and instantly killed at a point on
the west side of Water Street about twenty feet north
of the north line of Marietta Street just after noon on a
bright clear day. Appellant's truck was being driven b.^■
their employee .Arnold Judy, a boy seventeen years old
and the son of one of the appellants. The truck was a
two-ton Republic truck, and was being driven south on
the west side of Water Street at the time it ran over
the boy. Arnold Judy testified that when he was at the
Orchard Street intersection he saw the decedent stand-
ing on the curb on the east side of Water Street, but
219 l.A. 659
rtnersaoins:
that he did not see him leave the curb and start across
the street; that the street car went south on Water
Street and passed him about twenty-five feet north of
Marietta Street; that he was about five to seven feet be-
hind the street car at the point of the accident; that he
next saw the boy squarely in front of his truck; that the
boy came from behind the street car; that he was driv-
ing about two feet from the west curb and from "eight-
een to ten miles per hour" as he came south on Water
Street from Orchard Street to where he collided with
the boy at Marietta Street. Water Street is about fifty
feet wide.
Page 2
It would have been physically impossible for this ac-
cident to have occurred in the manner that Arnold Judj'
describes it in his testimony. That the little boy could
have darted behind a street car that was running at a
rate of speed slightly in excess of the truck and passed
behind the street car and across the rest of the street
in front of the truck, which was only two feet from the
west curb and from five to seven feet behind the street
car and running at least ten miles an hour, is absolutely
impossible. No sensible jury would believe such a story
or attach much weight, if any, to the evidence of the
seventeen year old boy who told it to free his father and
employee from financial liability for this awful accident,
caused, as the evidence shows, by the willful and wanton
disregard of his duty and the rights of pedestrians on the
street. His testimony is of the most damaging character
and must have settled conclusively, in the minds of the
jury, all questions of fact.
Appellants called two other witnesses who saw the
accident. Their testimony is at fatal variance with that
of Arnold Judy, and they difter materially between
themselves.
Appellee proved his case by three eye witnesses and
four others who were present at the place of the collis-
ion immediately before or after it occurred. From the
testimony of appellee's witnesses it satisfactorily appears
that the truck was being driven at the rate of about
eighteen miles an hour at the time it struck
Page 3
the boy. The
noise of the collision was heard at some distance. The
truck was going so fast it turned the boy end over end
when it struck him, and when his body hit the pavement
the truck struck his feet, turned him and struck his head.
It is unrei^onable to argue, in the face of this record,
that Arnold Judy was driving slowly and with due care.
The very thing: that attracted the attention of two of
the witnesses was the high rate of speed at which he was
going. After Judy struck the body he ran on across Mar-
ietta Street before stopping. Appellee's evidence dir-
ectly contradicts the proposition that a street car passed
at the time in question, and we find from a preponder-
ance of the evidence that no street car did pass the truck
on Water Street as claimed by Arnold Judy.
Without proceeding further to set out the evidence,
we deem it sufficient to say that the negligence of ap-
pellant's was clearly established by the greater weight
of the evidence, and that Arnold Judy was driving at a
high and dangerous rate of speed. Appellant's attor-
ney's admit, in their brief, that Water Street at the point
of the accident is a much traveled street. That fact is
clearly prown and the evidence is such that the jury may
have justly found that the conduct of Arnold Judy in
driving the truck at the high and dangerous rate of speed
he did drive it through a much traveled street amounted
to willful and wanton misconduct.
There is also ample evidence in the record to justify
the
Page 4
jury in finding that those in charge of the boy were
in the exercise of due care for his safety, and it is idle
to contend that the negligence of appellants was not the
proximate cause of the injury.
It is claimed that Arnold Judy was not in the line of
his duty at the time of the accident. Appellant C. J.
Tucker testified that at the time of the injury Arnold
Judy was in the employ of appellants and in the dis-
charge of business for the firm, with the truck in question
and on his way from luncheon to their place of business.
No special plea was filed denying the relationship of
master and servant or that appellants were operating
and in control of the truck that caused the injury, and
therefore such relatlorship is a.dmitted. Union Traction
Co. v. Jerka, 227 111. 95, 99; and Kieshowski v. Bastrom.
179 111. App. 73, 79. Even if the point were not waived
there is no merit in it. Rainford v. Chicago City Ry. Co.
2S9 111. 427, 430-4.31.
The findings we have made relative to the facts
pertaining to negligence, speed, willful and wanton mis-
conduct eliminates most of the contentions made in re-
gard to the admission and exclusion of evidence and in-
structions.
The evidence in regard to the skid tracks was ex-
cluded on appellant's motion and the jury instructed to
disregarij .such evidence. We cannot think that the
fountain of justice was poisoned by showing the jury the
blood of the little boy in the street and the skid marks
Page 5
as appellant's counsel argues. If the fountain of justice
was poisoned in this case it was by the testimony of Ar-
nold Jydy. There were no rulings relative to the skid
marks that were prejudicial to the appellants. The ob-
jection ure;ed in reference to the cross examination of
Ethel Hodges and the direct examination of Walter
Turner are of no consequence and could not have harmed
appellants. The trial court was very liberal towards ap-
pellants in all his rulings. It is complained that Arnold
Judy was asked, on cross examination, if he had a chauf-
fer's license. No objection was made until after the
question had been answered, and no motion was made to
strike out his answei*. We do not consider it error, un-
der this record, and in any event it could not have been
harmful.
The instruction on due care given at the request of
appellee was correct, and as appellants had given an in-
struction on the same subject to the same effect, there
could be no eiTor of which they could complain. All of
appellant's refused instructions were fully covered by
other instructions that were given.
It 1% Anally claimed that the damages are excessive.
The boy was in good health, almost six years old, and
ready to start to school. He was an only child and left
a father and mother as his next of kin. The verdicts
were held to be not excessive in each of the following
death cases. United States Brewing Co. v. Stolenberg,
211 111. 531. Boy was four years old and the verdict was
$5000.00.
Page 6
Calumet Electric Street Ry Co. v. Van Pelt,
173 111. 70. Girl v/as nine years old and the verdict was
S5000.00 Swan v. Boston Store, 177 111. App. 349. Boy
was five years old and verdict was $10,000.00 Chicago
City Railway Co. v. Strong, 129 111. App. 511. Boy was
six years old and the verdict was $5000.00 Chicago City
Railway Co. v. Reddick, 139 111. App. 161. Boy was two
years old and the verdict was .$6000.00 Cicero and Pro-
viso Street Ry Co. v. Boyd, 95 111. App. 510. Boy was sev-
1
en years old and verdict was $5000.00 Halbert v. Louis-
ville and Nashville Railroad Co., 186 III. App. 508. N<«
evidence in regard to the heath of a four year old girl
was offered and the veidict was $3000.00 Grayhek v.
Stearn, 154 111. App. 385. Girl was four years old and
verdict was $3000.00.
In Chicago City Railway Co. v. Strong, 129 111. App.
511, 516-517, the court said, "It has been decided that
such damages cannot be limited by any fixed rules and
must be left largely to the sound discretion of the jury.
Chicago ;'nd Alton Railway Co. v. Shannon, 43 111. 338.
The amount of the recovery in this case is the maximum
allowed by law at the time the boy died. He was an or-
dinary bright boy, but too young to judge of his filial at-
tainments in the 'battle of life.' He was an American
youth and evei-y ambition of life was open to him, and
fame and distinction and high place, in this free repub-
lic, were not barred to him. The country's
Page 7
history is re-
plete with names which shine luminous upon the scroll
of fame, who climbed the giddy heights of prominence
and usefulness as the reward of strenuous and patriotic
endeavor from as humljle a station in life as that to
which the deceased was born. What comfort and finan-
cial support he might have been to his next of kin we
can never known. What sorrow or charge upon them he
might have become is ecjually denied. He who was the
tanner's son lived to make that father a postmaster, and
many snug and lucrative offices were bestowed upon
many of his kin. Therefore no one may know what act-
ual damage the next of kin have suffered, and there is
no class distinction or advantage of heredity here, all are
on an equal plane, and the damages must be admeasured
within the limitations of the statute, and of necessity
what the amount "ha'l be lai'gely rests in the discretion
of the jury."
In comparing the present and past verdicts for sim-
ilar persona! injuries, the difference in the purchasing
power of money, or in other words the increase or de-
crease in the cost of living at the present time as com-
pared with such power at the time the prior awards were
made, may be takon into consideration. 3 Am. Law Rep.
610.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed.
Page 8
.cu
General No. 7100. ^ Agenda No. 2.
April Term, A. D. /920.
George 0. North, Appellant, OlQTA flfiO
Henry Mahannah andJCharles Mahannah, ^-v T i
Appeiees. Jp L V A •A* K> V^ ^
Appeal from Gircni^ Gourt, Macon Gounty.
ELDREDGE J.
George 0. North, appellant, filed a bill in Ghancery
in the Gircuit Gourt of Macon Gounty to foreclose a
mortgage assigned to him by the Mutual Benefit Life
Insurance Gompany, and executed by Henry Mahannah
and his wife to secure a loan evidenced by a promissory
note for the sum of $14,000.00. Hemy Mahannah, his
wife and Gharles Mahannah were made parties defen-
dant to the bill. The lands embraced in the mortgage
consisted of 210.56 acres. Henry Mahannah, appellee,
filed a cross bill. Answers were filed to the original
and cross bills, and the cause was heard upon except-
ions to the report, of the Master in Ghancery. From the
decree rendered, George O. North, complainant in the
original bill, appealed to this court and Henry MahannEih,
complainant in the cross bill, appealed to the Supreme
Gourt. The issues and the facts are fully set out in the
opinion rendered by the Supreme Gourt on the appeal
to that court (Mahannah vs. Mahannah, 292 111., 133)
and that opinion disposes of all the questions involved
on the appeal to this court.
Pa«« 1
The decree of the Gircuit Gourt, in so far as it in-
volved the issues presented by the original bill, is af-
firmed.
Page 2
I
GENERAL NO. 7139. / AGENDA NO. 8.
APRIL TERM, ^0. 1920.
E. R. Kirgan, Defendant in Error,
1
Warren C. Fairbanks, Plaintiff irf
Error to the Circui| Court, Greene County.
ELDREDGE, J. /
This is a writ of error sued out to review a judg-
jnent for $1,162..50 in an action of assumpsit rendered in
the Circuit Court of Greene County in favor of defend-
ant in error and against plaintiff in error.
The first count of the declaration avers in subs-
tance that Kirgan, plaintiff in the suit, was on January
1, 1915, a tenant of the defendant, Fairbanks under a
written lease for one year of certain lands situated in
Bluffdale Township in Greene County, Illinois, and said
lease was to expire by the terms thereof on or about
March 1, 1915; and whereas after March 1, 1915, the de-
fendant was desirous of releasing said lands to the plain-
tiff for another year from and after March 1, 1915, and
offered to lease the same to the plaintiff, but the plain;
tiff declined to lease said lands because they were not
properly drained and the defendant, in order to induce
plaintiff to lease said lands, oi-ally
Page 1
promised said plain-
tiff and orally agi-eed that if he, the plaintiff, would en-
ter on said lands and plant com and other agricultural
products thereon during the cropping season of 1915,
he, the defendant, would construct or cause to be con-
structed drainage ditches on said lands to properly and
completely drain the same so that the crops planted
tbereon during the said year would not be harmed by
water; and the plaintiff, relying upon said pi'omise and
in consideration thereof, entered upon said lands m the
spring of 1915 and planted and cultivated the same and
did everything he was required to do by the terms of his
oral lease and agreement, yet the defendant did not
comply with his agreement to construct said ditches but
wholly failed to do so by reason whereof, surface water
came upon said lands in 1915 and totally destroyed the
corn crop thereon, then and there the property of the
plaintiff, and damaged the same to the amount of $5,-
000.00, etc. The second count is substantially the same
as the first with the exception that it declares upon an
1191.4.660
oral lease made between the plaintiff and defendant for
the yeai- commencing March 1, 1916, and ending March
L 1917. The third count comprised the common counts.
Wai-ren C. Fairbanks, plaintiff in error, in 1914 own-
ed a number of acres of land in Greene County which he
leased out in parcels to different tenants. The entire
tract of land is commonly referred to
Pa^e 2
in the testimony
as "The Ranch." In 1914, W. D. Fairbanks, was the
superintendent of this Ranch. In that year, on the first
day of March, E. R. Kirgan, defendant in error, and
said Warren C. Fairbanks, by W. D. Fairbanks his agent,
executed a written lease demising about one hundred
acres of land to Kirgan for a term of two years com-
mencing on the first day of March, 1914, and ending on
the first day of March, 1916. This lease is under seal
and as Kirgan could not write, his name was signed
thereto by C. A. Rohrer, his son-in-law. The first count
of the declaration charges that on Januai-y 1st, 1915, de-
fendant was a tenant under a written lease for one year
which was to expire by the terms therof, on or about
March 1, 1915, sx\d tha.t after March 1st, 1915, in consi-
deration that defendant in error would again lease said
lands, plaintiff in error promised to construct certain
ditches thereon. The evidence fails to sustain this
count as it is conclusively shown, that at that time, the
defendant in error v/as in possession of the premises un-
der a written lease v/hich did not expire until March 1st,
1916. In connection v/ith this count, the Court gave to
the jiu'y the first instruction offered on behalf of defen-
dant in error which is as follows: "The Court instructs
the Jury that if you believe from the evidence that the
defendant leased some of his lands orally for one year
from March 1, 1915 to March 1, 1916, to the plaintiff;
and at the time, in
Page 3
order to induce the plaintiff to
lease the same and plant com thereon on shai-es, the de-
fendant orally promised the plaintiff" and orally agreed
that he, the defendant, would in 1915, cut. dig, or open
or cause the same to be done, drainage ditches so as to
properly drain said land; and the plaintiff relied upon
such promise and ag-reement, and in consideration there-
of did lease certain :ands of Defendant and did plant and
cultivate corn thereon; and if you further believe that
the defendant failed to die or cut such ditches and be-
cause of such failure, water came upon the corn and
damaged or destroyed any part of it, then the plaintiff is
entitled to recover and your verdict should be for the
plaintiff."
The evidence of defendant in error on v/hich this in-
struction is supposed to be based and which it is claimed
sustains the first count if, in substance as follows: "It
was about the first of March, 1915, that I heard W. D.
Fairbanks was going to leave and I went up to see
about things. I went to see Mr. Warren C. Fairbanks
and told him that the land needed some ditching. He
said he was going to ditch the land. He did ditch it,
but too late to save my crop. That was all the conver-
sation I had with Mr. Warren C. Fairbanks about it.
Afterwards, I saw Mr. Long and he said, 'We expect to
ditch it, but they could not get repairs for the machine.'
The v/ater damaged my crop in 1915 the latter part of
May or June." The court, on its o^vn motion, modified
Page 4
and gave an instruction. No. 14, offered on behalf of
plaintiff in error, which is as follows: "11. The Court
instructs the Jury that if you believe from the evidence
that the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a
written lease beginning on the first day of March 1914,
and ending on the first day of March 1916 then the Plain-
tiff can not recover for damages claimed for the year
1915, unless you further believe from a preponderance
of the evidence that such written lease or agreement was
mutually abandoc^ed or rescinded by the parties nnd that
an oral anreement was then entered into for the year
1915, whereby the defendant agreed and promised the
plaintiff to open and dig ditches that would properly
drain the lands so leased to the plaintiff and that the
plaintiff's 1915 crop was injured or destroyed because of
the failure of the defendant to dig and open such ditch-
es." The italicized (blackfaced) portion is the modifica-
tion made by the Court. Defendant in error on the trial
did not advance nor contend for the theory that the ori-
ginal lease had been abandoned by the parties and a new
oral lease for the year commencing March 1st, 1915, and
ending March 1st, 1916, substituted therefor, but it is
plain that defendant in error proceeded upon the theory
that the written lease embraced only the -first year from
March 1st, 1914, to March 1st, 1915, as he testified, "I
had a written lease for the first year." Tiie modifica-
tion of instruction No. 14
Page 5
by the court injects into the
case for the first time the theory of an abandonment of
the original lease on March Ist^ 1915. Even if the theo-
ry of abandonment had been pi-operly pleaded in the
first count, there is no evidence to sustain it. On the
1st of March, 1915, defendant in error was holding poss-
ession of the land under a written lease which contained
no covenant for the digging of ditches thereon. If
plaintiff in error did say that he was going to ditch the
land, there was no consideration for the promise, nor do
the proofs show that said promise, if made, was made to
induce defendant in error to stay on the land. There is
no evidence tending to support the first count of the de-
claration, nor is there any on which to base the 1st ins-
truction given on behalf of defendant in error, nor the
14th offered by plaintiff in error as modified by the
Court. The giving of these instructions was clearly er-
roneous. No recovery can be had under the first count
of the declaration.
The testimony of defendant in error which, it is al-
leged, sustains the second count is in substance as fol-
lows: "I rented this land again in 1916. I talked about
it before the 1st of March. They had been siving some
notices to some of the fellows and I asked Mr. Long
whether I got a notice or not. He said, *I guess not,'
and I said I would make arrangements to stay. I spoke
about this ditch at the time I talked to him about stay-
ing there and he said, 'We are going to cut that ditch
just as soon as we get repairs for the ditcher to cut that
Page 6
ditch. That the machine was out of repair and we could
not get them yet,' I told him what happened the year
before. I told him I could not farm the land any more
unless that ditch ',vas dug. He said they would cut the
ditch as soon as they got repairs for the machine. They
dug the d^tch in A'.^gust, 1916, but my com was practi-
cally lost at the time. The rains came and took it." On
March 1st, 191G, V/. J. Long had succeeded W. D. Fair-
banks as superintendent of The Ranch. Defendant in
error does not claim that he had any conversation with
plaintiff in error v/ith regard to these ditches or the
leasing of the land in the year 1916, but the only conver-
sation he had in regard thereto was with Long. There
is no e 
TVNews
OpenLibrary